2007 Supreme(Cal) 331

High Court Of Calcutta
Before Dabasish Kar Gupta, J.
PANKAJ MADHOGARHIA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P.  8085 (W)  Of  2007
Decided On : 05/04/2007

There is no bar to the mutation of the name of a stranger legatee in respect of a plot of land allotted on a lease for 999 years, where the original lessee has made a Will bequeathing the unexpired period of lease-hold interest in respect of the land in favour of the stranger legatee.

Headnote:

LEASEHOLD TRANSFER - WILL - NO BAR TO MUTATION OF NAME OF STRANGER LEGATEE: - Deed of lease dated June 9th, 1982 for 999 years - Lessee made his last Will and testament dated October 11th, 2005 bequeathing the unexpired period of lease-hold interest in respect of the land in favour of the petitioner - Executor of the Will obtained probate - Petitioner deposited requisite fee for mutation of his name - Respondent authority failed to mutate the name of the petitioner - Held, there is no bar and/or impediment to mutate the name of the petitioner by the respondent authority in respect of the land in question.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to mutate his name as lessee in respect of a plot of land allotted to the original lessee for 999 years by a deed of lease dated June 9th, 1982. The original lessee made a Will dated October 11th, 2005, bequeathing the unexpired period of lease-hold interest in respect of the land in favour of the petitioner. The executor of the Will obtained probate. The petitioner deposited the requisite fee for mutation of his name. However, the respondent authority failed to mutate the name of the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that there is no restrictive covenant in the lease to bequeath in favour of a stranger. Therefore, there is no bar and/or impediment to mutate the name of the petitioner by the respondent authority in respect of the land in question.

Issues: Whether there is any bar to the mutation of the name of the petitioner, a stranger legatee, in respect of the plot of land in question.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Anr. v. Kailash Chandra Kapur and Ors., (1997)2 SCC 387, wherein it was held that there is no express prohibition in the terms of the lease against bequest in favour of strangers. The court also relied on the decision of this court in Sm. Kanta Devi Agarwal and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (1999)1 cal LT (HC) 345, wherein it was held that the identical issue was decided by this court also relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondent authority to mutate the name of the petitioner in respect of the plot in question within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order.