Back
High Court Of Delhi
KANTA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
PROB.C.P. 12(LA) of 83
Decided On : 04/22/1985
SUCCESSION - JURISDICTION - GRANT OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - COURT'S DISCRETION - SECTION 271 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO GRANT LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - FACTORS CONSIDERED - CONVENIENCE AND JUSTNESS OF DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION - VALUE OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN DIFFERENT STATES - CONCLUSIVENESS OF PROBATE OR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - SECTION 273 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - INTERPRETATION - BINDING FORCE OF PROBATE OR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION - LIMIT OF VALUE OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN ANOTHER STATE - APPLICABILITY TO HIGH COURT AND DISTRICT JUDGE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, claiming to be the widow of the deceased, filed a petition for grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed under Sections 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The deceased had a fixed place of abode in Bombay, but there was a small deposit in Delhi. The petitioner argued that the Will was executed in Delhi and the witnesses resided there, making it convenient for her to produce evidence. The objector, the deceased's sister, contested the grant of letters of administration, denying the execution of the Will and the petitioner's status as the deceased's widow.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition based on the presence of movable property in Delhi, but exercised its discretion under Section 271 of the Act to refuse the application. The court found that the substantial property was located in Punjab and Maharashtra, and that Bombay, where the deceased had a fixed abode and all parties resided, was a more appropriate forum for the case. The court also clarified that Section 273 of the Act, which deals with the conclusiveness of probate or letters of administration, does not limit the High Court's jurisdiction but only places a limit of Rs. 10,000 on the value of property in another State for the binding force of letters of administration issued by a District Judge.
Issues: 1. Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for grant of letters of administration. 2. Whether the court should exercise its discretion under Section 271 of the Act to refuse the application.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court's jurisdiction to grant letters of administration is determined by the presence of a fixed place of abode or movable or immovable property within its jurisdiction. In this case, the deceased had a fixed place of abode in Bombay, but there was a small deposit in Delhi, conferring jurisdiction on the Delhi court. 2. The court's discretion under Section 271 of the Act to refuse an application is based on whether the case could be disposed of more justly or conveniently in another district. In this case, the court found that Bombay was a more appropriate forum considering the location of the substantial property, the residence of the parties, and the convenience of producing witnesses.
Final Decision: The court refused the application for grant of letters of administration, exercising its discretion under Section 271 of the Act. The petitioner was not debarred from making an appropriate application in Maharashtra or Punjab.
( 1 ) THE present petition filed under sections 276 and 278 of the Indian Succesion Act. 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is for grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed. The petitioner, Smt. Kanta claims to be widow of Sukhdev Singh Sandhu alias S. Sukhdev who died at Delhi on or about first day of March 1979. According to the petitioner, Sukhdev Singh Sandhu left her as his widow, a daughter Ms. Shabnam and mother Smt. Harnam Kaur.
( 2 ) FURTHER, as alleged by the petitioner, the deceased left a Will dated 22nd February 1979 in favour of the former and by virtue of that Will, she is entitled to the entire property of the deceased.
( 3 ) THE petition was filed in February 1983 which was about four years after the death of Sukhdev Singli Sandhu. The explanation for delayed filing of the petition, as given in the petition, is that Smt. Shaminder G. Bathra, a sister of the deceased, had been litigating with the petitioner at Ludhiana and Bombay in connection with the property of the deceased.
( 4 ) A notice of the petition was issued to Ms. Shabnam the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority and to the general public by way of publication of notice in Hindustan Times. No objection were filed except by Mrs. Shaminder G. Bathra, a sister of the deceased, who even filed a caveat No. 6 of 1983. She (Smt. Shaminder G. Bathra) contested the grant of letters of Administration to the petitioner. She denied that there was any execution of the Will in favour of the petitioner. She also denied that the petitioner is the widow of Sukhdev Singh Sandhu. She states that the petitioner was married to Prem Chand Son of Shri Roop Chand and that out of that wedlock one daughter Nisha was born who is still alive.
( 5 ) THE case of Smt. Shaminder G. Bathra, objector, is that at the time of death of Sukhdev Singh Sandhu, his mother Smt. Harnam Kaur was the only heir, that Smt. Harnam Kaur executed a Will on 20th May 1980 in her (Smt. Shaminder G. Bathra) favour and that, therefore, after the death of Hafnam Kaur, she became the owner of the entire property left by Sukhdev Singh Sandhu.
( 6 ) SHE also pleaded that the courts at Delhi had no Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition because Sukhdev Singh Sandhu had permanent abode at Bombay and did not have such an abode in the union territory of Delhi.
( 7 ) FOLLOWING preliminary issues were framed by H. C. Goel, J. on 30th August 1984.
1. Whether the courts at Delhi have got jursidiction to entertain the petition and grant the relief as prayed for. 2. Whether in view of the provisions of section 271 and 273 of the Indian Succession Act, the petition, should be heard and decided by this court. ISSUE NO. 1.
( 8 ) THE relevant provision regarding territorial jurisdiction is section 270 of the Indian Succession Act which reads as under
"270. When probate or administration may be granted by District Judge.-Probate of the Will or letters of administration to the estate of a deceased person may be granted by a District Judge under the seal of his Court, if it appears by a petition, verified as hereinafter provided, of the person applying for the same that the testator or interesters as the case may be, at the time of his decsease had a fixed place of abode, or any property, moveable or immovable, within the jurisdiction of the Judged"it is, therefore, clear that in order that a court may have territorial jurisdiction, the deceased should have either a fixed place of abode or moveable or immovable property within its jurisdiction. In the present case it is common ground between the parties that the fixed place of abode of the deceased Sukhdev D Singh and was Bombay. However Schedule No. 1 attached to the petition given the particulars of the property movable as well as imovable left by the deceased. The only property as per that schedule in the union territory of Delhi is a deposit in the amount of Rs. 956. 63 p. in account No. 35 59317 in the State Bank of India,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
