High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
N.S. Chopra
Versus
State
Test Case No. 38 of 2013
Decided On : 23-01-2014
Jurisdiction - Immovable Property - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 270, 271
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a test petition claiming that his deceased brother was an ordinary resident of Faridabad and left behind immovable assets in Faridabad and some movable assets in Delhi. The court had to decide whether the case was maintainable in Delhi for an immovable property situated in Faridabad.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that since the deceased did not have a fixed residence in Delhi at the time of his death, the Delhi court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for grant of letters of administration. It was deemed more just and convenient for the Faridabad court to handle the case.
Issues: Jurisdiction over immovable property, interpretation of Indian Succession Act, 1925
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Sections 270 and 271 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which state that the court where the deceased had a fixed place of residence or where the property is situated has jurisdiction to grant letters of administration. If the deceased had no fixed abode in the district, the judge may refuse the application or grant limited letters of administration.
Final Decision: The petition was directed to be returned to be filed in an appropriate forum, and the court disposed of the petition.
V.K. Shali, J. (Oral)
1. The question to be decided in the instant matter is as to whether the present case is maintainable in Delhi in respect of an immovable property situated in Faridabad. Before dealing with the aforesaid question, it will be pertinent to give a brief background of the case.
2. The petitioner Sh.N.S.Chopra has filed a test petition (although in my view it ought to have been a LA case) claiming that Sh.Ranjit Chopra, his brother (deceased), was an ordinary resident of Faridabad, Haryana. The deceased had left behind immovable assets in the form of a residential flat at first floor rear portion of property No.2286 Sector A, measuring 388.89 square yards (325.11 square metres) forming a part of Khasra No.48/17, in the residential colony known as ‘GREENFIELDS’, Faridabad, Haryana. In addition to this, he had left behind certain bank accounts having some monies and some FDRs in Delhi. The petition was originally filed before the District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi who assigned the same to ADJ-I, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The petition was returned by the court of ADJ on the ground that the valuation of the property as shown by the petitioner himself was Rs.21 lakhs and, therefore, the court held that it did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the case.
3. Thereafter the present petition was filed in the High Court. Notice was issued to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority with regard to valuation of the immovable property in question who gave the report assessing the value of the property to be approximately Rs.24 lakhs. Notice had simultaneously been issued to the standing counsel for the respondent/State.
4. The learned standing counsel for the respondent has appeared and raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground that the deceased Sh.Ranjit Chopra was ordinarily a resident of Faridabad and the property in question was situated in Faridabad, therefore, the court at Faridabad only had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition for grant of letters of administration.
5. This plea was refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that no doubt the deceased Sh.Ranjit Chopra was an ordinarily resident of Faridabad, but he had bank accounts in Delhi. Therefore, this court also has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments being Test Case No.23/2006 titled Smt.Gita Bawa v. State and Ors, decided on 05.10.2007 and Smt.Kanta v.State and Anr.; AIR 1985 Delhi 453 to support his submission.
6. I have gone through both these judgments, the pleadings as well as the record.
7. Before dealing with the issue as to whether the Delhi court has the jurisdiction or not, it would be pertinent here to refer to certain provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, under which the petitioner is claiming the letters of administration. The Sections 270 & 271 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read 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 intestate, as the case may be, at the time of his decease had a fixed place of abode, or any property, moveable or immoveable, within the jurisdiction of the Judge.
271. Disposal of application made to Judge of district in which deceased had no fixed abode.- When the application is made to the Judge of a district in which the deceased had no fixed abode at the time of his death, it shall be in the discretion of the Judge to refuse the application, if in his judgment it could be disposed of more justly or conveniently in another district, or, where the application is for letters of administration, to grant them absolut
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.