Back
1987 Supreme(Del) 248
High Court Of Delhi
PARI HINGORANI - Appellant
Versus
SHAKUNTALA - Respondent
I.A.S. 4554 of 1986
Decided On : 07/10/1987
Mohinder Goel, RAJ PANJWANI, RAM PANJWANI, T.K.GANJU
S. 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars courts from granting an injunction to restrain a person from instituting or prosecuting proceedings in a foreign court.
Headnote:
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - JURISDICTION - RESTRAINING FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS - INJUNCTION - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - S. 41(B) - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT - PROBATE AND LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - EXECUTOR - RESIDUARY LEGATEE - LOCUS STANDI - S. 222, 232, 234 - DEFECT IN PETITION - VERIFICATION BY ATTESTING WITNESS.
Fact of the Case:
Pari Hingorani, a beneficial legatee under her father's will, filed a petition for grant of probate or letters of administration. Her husband, Ram, challenged the title to the property and the validity of the will. Shakuntala, a residuary legatee, initiated proceedings in London for grant of probate. Pari sought to restrain Shakuntala from proceeding with the London action.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it had no jurisdiction to restrain Shakuntala from prosecuting the proceedings in London. The court also held that Shakuntala, as the residuary legatee, had a prior right to the grant of letters of administration.
Issues: 1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to restrain a person from instituting or prosecuting proceedings in a foreign court? 2. Whether a residuary legatee has a prior right to the grant of letters of administration?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. S. 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 expressly precludes courts from granting an injunction to restrain any person from instituting or prohibiting any person in a court not subordinate to that from which an injunction is sought. 2. S. 232 of the Indian Succession Act provides that when the deceased has made a will, but has not appointed an executor, a universal or a residuary legatee may be admitted to prove the will, and letters of administration annexed with the will may be granted to him of the whole estate.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the applications filed by Pari Hingorani and Shakuntala.
( 2 ) DR. Rochiram Udhavdas Hingorani, hereinafter referred to as Dr. Hingorani, a Hindu, executed a will dated 14-2-1979 at Delhi, but did not appoint an executor. The testator bequeathed property No. 42, Anandlok in Delhi to his son Ram, his wife Pari and their daughter Angela. Except this property, he left unspecified residue of the estate to his daughter Shakuntala and her legal heirs. Relevant clauses 2 and 4 of the will read as follows :-
"on my death I bequeath to my son Ram his wife Pari and their daughter Angela, the house and property on plot No. 42, Anandlok Colony, New Delhi. 4. I leave to my daughter Shakuntala and her legal heirs all that might remain of my assets and personal papers and effects of any description at the time of my death, except the house and property on plot No. 42, Anandlok Colony, New Delhi. "
( 3 ) DR. Hingorani died on 28-4-1986 at London. Pari filed the main petition under Ss. 276 and 300 of the Indian Succession Act 1925, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for grant of probate or letters of administration to her. She named her husband Ram, daughter Angela and Shakuntala, among others, as near relatives of the deceased.
( 4 ) RAM and Pari Hingorani are happily married and are living in the same house at Anand Lok which has been bequeathed to them. This fact was stated by Pari s counsel at the Bar. While Ram is challenging title of his father to the property and the validity of the will, his wife wants to enforce it.
( 5 ) PARI filed IA 4554 of 1986. It was alleged that she apprehended that Shakuntala will initiate proceedings in London for grant of probate of the will and prayed that Shakuntala be restrained from filing or proceeding with action at London. Soon thereafter, she filed the second application IA 4657 of 1986 stating that Shakuntala has started the proceedings and prayed that she be restrained from proceeding with the case in London. Both these applications were opposed by Shakuntala. She also filed IA 4933 of 1986 seeking dismissal of Pari s applications and also the main petition on the grounds, inter alia, that she was not the executor appointed by will, that a residuary legatee alone is engned to the rant of letters of administration, and that the main petition is not verified by any of the witnesses to the will. During the hearing of the first three applications, learned counsel for Shakuntala contended, inter alia, that Pari would suffer no prejudice by London proceedings as she was herself supporting the will, Ram promptly came forward with IA 5997 of 1986 to restrain Shakuntala from proceeding with her case at London. Meanwhile proceedings continued in London and some order was made on 22-10-1986. Pari filed IA 6068 of 1986 praying that Shakuntala be directed to disclose the order passed by the London Court. Learned counsel for Pari and also for Shakuntala referred to books to show the scope of law regarding probate proceedings in England. Shakuntala filed an affidavit of a solicitor dated 18-9-1986 regarding probate proceedings in England. Pari objected to this affidavit. She filed IA 6069 of 1986 praying that the affidavit filed on behalf of Shakuntala to prove English law be rejected.
( 6 ) NONE of the near relatives of deceased Dr. Hingorani has contested the will except his son Ram. According to him, Dr. Hingorani had Indian domicile, he was a citizen of India, he was governed by Mitakshara Hindu Law, and that he had no right to bequeath the property as it was coparcenary property. According to him, the will dated 14-2-1979 is not the last will of Dr. Hingorani. He has also challenged validity of the will on the ground that it was made by Dr. Hingorani unde
