The High Court has jurisdiction to remove an Executor and to appoint a successor in his place under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

S.N.Aggarwal, J.

1. Seth Bhagirath Das, an eminent Advocate of Punjab and Haryana High Court of yester years had executed a trust deed on 18.1.1996 in the name of his mother titled as Champawati Charitable Trust (in short CC Trust). It was got registered with Sub Registrar, Chandigarh on 17.2.1966. An amount of Rs. 5,000/- was credited in said trust to begin with. He had also executed a supplementary trust deed on 31.1.1989, which was got registered on 6.2.1989. On 21.1.1985, said Bhagirath Das executed a Will in which he detailed the list of his movable and immovable property and by the said Will he disposed of these properties in favour of CC Trust. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- was kept apart for his wife and some amount in the name of his sister Geeta Bai. Some amount was also earmarked for his servants and for the maintenance of dogs etc. On 28.12.1988 Seth Bhagirath Das executed a codicil. Seth Bhagirath Das completed his journey in this world on 25.4.1989 and expired.

2. The trustees were appointed in the Will dated 21.1.1985 read with codicil dated 28.12.1988. Similarly the Executor was also named in the Will but as ill luck would have it, the litigation started thereafter.

3. The journey of litigation started with the filing of Probate application, in this Court, by one of the trustees, namely, Uma Aggarwal on 13.7.1989. In this petition for probate Yadvinder Thakur, named in the Will as Executor and Managing Trustee and the other three trustees named in the Will, were made respondents. Shanti Devi and Gita Rani, sisters of Seth Bhagirath Das and the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association (beneficiary), were also impleaded. Sanjay Kumar, who proclaimed himself to be the adopted son of Seth Bhagirath Das and Smt. Soni Bai widow of Seth Bhagirath Das, were also impleaded as respondents. In this petition filed under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short, the Act, 1925), for the grant of letters of administration of the Will dated 21.1.1985, read with codicil dated 28.12.1988, the list of properties, Schedule A (moveable properties) and Schedule B (immovable properties), were attached.

4. On notice, Soni Bai widow of late Seth Bhagirath Das filed written statement and contested the petition. She also challenged the validity of codicil. It was pleaded by her that the Probate can be granted in favour of the Executor named in the Will. Counter allegations were made relating to movable property against the petitioner. The correctness of properties cited in Schedule B was also disputed. It was also pleaded that on 13.4.1975 Sanjay Kumar (respondent 8) was adopted as a son by Seth Bhagirath Das and the adoption was reduced into writing on 13.4.1981. The properties of Hindu Undivided Family situated at Amritsar and shown in Schedule B were subjected to partition and the partition deed was got registered on 11.4.1986 in the office of Sub Registrar, Amritsar. The following properties had come to the share of respondents No. 8 and 9, as under-

S.No. Property In whose favour (A) Bagachi situated in Soni Bai Bagh Rama Nand, Amritsar (B) Tawela in Katra Man Singh, Sanjay Kumar Amritsar (C) Tawela in Katra Karam Singh, Amritsar Sanjay Kumar The dismissal of the petition was prayed.

5. Yadvinder Thakur and O.P.Aggarwal (respondents No. 1 and 3), also filed joint written statement and contested the petition. It was pleaded by them that by virtue of registered partition deed dated 3.4.1986. Bagichi situated in Bagh Rama Nand, Amritsar, had come to the share of Soni Bai (respondent No. 9). Respondent No. 1 (Yadvinder Thakur) was appointed as Executor of the Will dated 21.1.1985 and therefore, said Will be probated in favour of Yadvinder Thakur. Replication was filed by the petitioner to both the written statements. On 18.5.1990, the learned Counsel for the petitioner (Uma Aggarwal), pleaded no objection if Yadvinder Thakur was transposed as co-petitioner and that he alone was entitled to the grant of Probate. Acc