Back
1954 Supreme(Cal) 121
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. R. DASS, MALLICK
AKHILESWAR SAHA PRAMANICK - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
A. F. O. D. (Probate) 244 Of 1952
Decided On : JULY 02, 1954
DWIJENDRA KRISHNA DUTT, HEMENDRA KUMAR DAS, Kumar Krishna Dutta, TAPENDRA KUMAR PAL
The right of a creditor to obtain Letters of Administration under Section 218 of the Succession Act, 1925, is not taken away by the fact that escheat proceedings have been started by the Collector.
Headnote:
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTION 218 - LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - RIGHT OF CREDITOR TO OBTAIN - ESCHEAT PROCEEDINGS - EFFECT ON - RIGHT NOT TAKEN AWAY BY REGULATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ESCHEATED PROPERTIES - CREDITOR'S RIGHT TO SUE IN CIVIL COURT OR APPLY FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE - FAILURE TO SUE IN CIVIL COURT - NOT A GROUND FOR REFUSING LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a creditor of the deceased Manua Khepa Baba, applied for Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased. The State of West Bengal objected to the application on the ground that escheat proceedings had already been started by the Collector and that the appellant could prove his claim before the Collector or in a Civil Court. The District Judge dismissed the application, holding that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the application in view of the escheat proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellant had the right to obtain Letters of Administration under Section 218 of the Succession Act, 1925, and that this right was not taken away by the regulations for the administration of escheated properties. The Court also held that the appellant's failure to sue in a Civil Court was not a ground for refusing him Letters of Administration.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had the right to obtain Letters of Administration in view of the escheat proceedings. 2. Whether the appellant's failure to sue in a Civil Court was a ground for refusing him Letters of Administration.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Bengal Regulation 19 of 1810 and the general rules of the Bengal Practices and Procedure Manual, 1934, which were relied upon by the District Judge, are mere departmental directions for the purpose of administration of escheated properties and do not govern the rights of third parties 'vis a vis' the Government. 2. The right of a creditor to obtain Letters of Administration under Section 218 of the Succession Act, 1925, is not taken away by the fact that escheat proceedings have been started by the Collector. 3. The fact that a creditor has not taken recourse to a regular suit is not a ground for refusing him Letters of Administration if he is otherwise entitled to the same.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Judge, and remanded the matter to the trial Court for determination of the question as to whether or not the appellant was a creditor of the deceased Manua Khepa Baba.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of Shri G. P, Mukherjee, District Judge of Nadia, dismissing art application of the appellant for Letters of Administration to the estate of one Manua Khepa Baba deceased.
( 2 ) THE appellant claims to be a creditor of the deceased Manua Khepa Baba. His claim is for the sum of Rs. 4325/-, due qn a hat chita. It appears that the said Manua Khepa Baba died at Benares on 21-10-1949. He had no heir and he left no Will. So under the law of the land his estate would escheat to the Government. The deceased left properties in the districts of Nadia and Burdwan. After his death as nobody applied for Letters of. Administration, the appellant on 16-6-1950 made the present application for grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased. The application was made on the footing that the applicant was a creditor of the said Manua Khepa Baba. An objection to the said application was filed by State of West Bengal. In the written statement which was filed by the Government it was 'inter alia' stated that the allegations in the petition that the appellant as a creditor and the deceased, Manua Khepa Baba executed a hat chita for the sum of Rs. 4325/- on 16th Baisakh 1336 B. S. are not admitted and even if the appellant had got any claim against the estate of the deceased, he could very well file and prove the same before the Collector or in a Civil Court. The matter came" up for hearing before the District Judge of Nadia. Several issues were raised. All those issues related' to the question as to whether or not in view of the escheat proceedings which had already been started by the Collector in respect of the estate of the deceased, the present application was maintainable. That in substance is the implication of the issues which were raised before the learned District Judge. The District Judge also dealt with all the issues together and came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to maintain the present application. The ground on which the learned District Judge based his aforesaid conclusion was that escheat proceeding was started by the Collector on 31-1-1950 and if the plaintiff had got any debt or claim against the estate of the deceased Manua Khepa Baba it was his business and duty to file and prove the same before the Collector in that escheat proceeding, because that proceeding was started long before the present application for the grant of Letters of Administration was filed. He further held that the appellant had also got opportunities to bring a suit in Civil Court and to prove his claim and if he did not avail himself of the said opportunities that was his fault and negligence and because of such Fault and negligence he could not claim as a matter of right to be entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration. With all respect to the learned Judge we are entirely unable to see the force of his reasoning. We do riot understand why a creditor must prove his claim against the estate before the Collector although an escheat proceeding may have been started by the Collector. The Bengal Regulation 19 of 1810 and the general rules of the Bengal Practices and Procedure Manual, 1934, were placed before us in support of the views taken by the learned District Judge. But we are unable to see anything in those rules and regulations which can in any way support the said decision. The Bengal Regulation 19 of 1810 is a Regulation 'inter alia' for the custody and disposal of Nazul properties of escheats. Article 7 of the said Regulation to which reference was made on behalf of the Government simply lays down that the general superintendence of Nasul properties, of escheats is to be vested in the Board Of Revenue, which will do certain things mentioned therein. Article 361 of the Bengal Practices and Procedure Manual to which also our attention was drawn on behalf of the Government 'inter alia' lays down that as the Board- is vestqd with the general sup
