Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAVI S. DHAVAN
MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGHV - Appellant
Versus
PADAM KUMARI DEVI - Respondents
Testamentary Suit 2 Of 1988
Decided On : 05/22/1992
PADMA KUMARI DEVI V. WING COMMANDER NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH - SUBJECT - POWER OF ATTORNEY - ACT SECTION LIST - 1. ORDER 32 RULE 15 2. ORDER 32 RULE 2 3. ORDER 32 RULE 1 4. ORDER 32 RULE 2A 5. ORDER 32A RULE 2 6. ORDER 32A RULE 3 7. ORDER 10 RULE 2 8. ORDER 16 RULE 7 9. ORDER 16 RULE 14 10. ORDER 16 RULE 16 11. ORDER 16 RULE 21 12. ORDER 16 RULE 20 13. ORDER 16 RULE 13 14. ORDER 5 RULE 3 15. ORDER 3 RULE 1 16. ORDER 10 RULE 4 17. ORDER 16 RULE 13 18. SECTION 165 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 19. SECTION 114 (H) 20. SECTION 109 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT 21. SECTION 183 OF THE CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - SUMMARY - The court was faced with two cases, both arising out of the estate of one Mahendra Pratap Singh. In the first case, Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, the brother of the deceased, applied for letters of administration on his brother's estate. In the second case, Padma Kumari Devi, the mother of the deceased, applied for letters of administration on the same estate. The court noted that all the pleadings on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi had been affirmed at Dehradun, Delhi, or Allahabad. The conduct of the case was through a person who claimed himself as the holder of a general power of attorney of Padma Kumari Devi. The court also noted that Padma Kumari Devi was not in a position to give instructions and had no comprehension to receive them. The court appointed a commission to examine Padma Kumari Devi, and the commission reported that she could not comprehend the questions being put to her. The court then directed that Padma Kumari Devi be examined by a leading physician of the city. However, Ajit Singh Panwar, the holder of the power of attorney, took Padma Kumari Devi to New Delhi without permitting her to appear before the court. The court held that Ajit Singh Panwar was not a party to the proceedings and could not give evidence on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi. The court also held that Ajit Singh Panwar was obstructing the course of justice by preventing the court from making an inquiry into the mental infirmity of Padma Kumari Devi. The court declared the power of attorney of Ajit Singh Panwar null and void and placed Padma Kumari Devi under the guardianship of the District Magistrate and Collector, Dehradun. The court also directed that the properties and assets of Padma Kumari Devi be attached to the Court of the District Judge, Dehradun. The court dismissed the case filed by Ajit Singh Panwar on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi and ordered him to furnish security for payment of costs. The court also allowed the application of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh seeking recall of the order of dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The court issued a letter of request to Nirmala Rana, the daughter of Padma Kumari Devi, requesting her to depose before the court. The court also directed the Registrar to send a copy of this order to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for his perusal.
Fact of the Case:
The court was faced with two cases, both arising out of the estate of one Mahendra Pratap Singh. In the first case, Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, the brother of the deceased, applied for letters of administration on his brother's estate. In the second case, Padma Kumari Devi, the mother of the deceased, applied for letters of administration on the same estate. The court noted that all the pleadings on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi had been affirmed at Dehradun, Delhi, or Allahabad. The conduct of the case was through a person who claimed himself as the holder of a general power of attorney of Padma Kumari Devi. The court also noted that Padma Kumari Devi was not in a position to give instructions and had no comprehension to receive them. The court appointed a commission to examine Padma Kumari Devi, and the commission reported that she could not comprehend the questions being put to her. The court then directed that Padma Kumari Devi be examined by a leading physician of the city. However, Ajit Singh Panwar, the holder of the power of attorney, took Padma Kumari Devi to New Delhi without permitting her to appear before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Ajit Singh Panwar was not a party to the proceedings and could not give evidence on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi. The court also held that Ajit Singh Panwar was obstructing the course of justice by preventing the court from making an inquiry into the mental infirmity of Padma Kumari Devi. The court declared the power of attorney of Ajit Singh Panwar null and void and placed Padma Kumari Devi under the guardianship of the District Magistrate and Collector, Dehradun. The court also directed that the properties and assets of Padma Kumari Devi be attached to the Court of the District Judge, Dehradun. The court dismissed the case filed by Ajit Singh Panwar on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi and ordered him to furnish security for payment of costs. The court also allowed the application of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh seeking recall of the order of dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The court issued a letter of request to Nirmala Rana, the daughter of Padma Kumari Devi, requesting her to depose before the court. The court also directed the Registrar to send a copy of this order to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for his perusal.
Issues: 1. Whether Ajit Singh Panwar, the holder of the power of attorney, could give evidence on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi. 2. Whether Ajit Singh Panwar was obstructing the course of justice by preventing the court from making an inquiry into the mental infirmity of Padma Kumari Devi. 3. Whether the power of attorney of Ajit Singh Panwar was valid. 4. Whether Padma Kumari Devi should be placed under the guardianship of the District Magistrate and Collector, Dehradun. 5. Whether the properties and assets of Padma Kumari Devi should be attached to the Court of the District Judge, Dehradun. 6. Whether the case filed by Ajit Singh Panwar on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi should be dismissed. 7. Whether Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh's application seeking recall of the order of dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution should be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person who holds a power of attorney cannot give evidence on behalf of the principal if the principal is not in a position to give instructions and has no comprehension to receive them. 2. A person who obstructs the course of justice by preventing the court from making an inquiry into the mental infirmity of a party is liable to be punished for contempt of court. 3. A power of attorney is not valid if the principal is not in a position to give instructions and has no comprehension to receive them. 4. A person who is not in a position to take care of themselves or their property should be placed under the guardianship of the court. 5. The properties and assets of a person who is not in a position to take care of themselves or their property should be attached to the court. 6. A case filed by a person who is not a party to the proceedings and who is obstructing the course of justice should be dismissed. 7. An application seeking recall of an order of dismissal of a suit for want of prosecution should be allowed if the court is satisfied that there are good grounds for doing so.
Final Decision: The court declared the power of attorney of Ajit Singh Panwar null and void and placed Padma Kumari Devi under the guardianship of the District Magistrate and Collector, Dehradun. The court also directed that the properties and assets of Padma Kumari Devi be attached to the Court of the District Judge, Dehradun. The court dismissed the case filed by Ajit Singh Panwar on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi and ordered him to furnish security for payment of costs. The court also allowed the application of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh seeking recall of the order of dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution. The court issued a letter of request to Nirmala Rana, the daughter of Padma Kumari Devi, requesting her to depose before the court. The court also directed the Registrar to send a copy of this order to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for his perusal.
( 1 ) A very ugly situation faces the Court, the High Court, in its original jurisdiction in these cases. Many questions have been flung at the Court. The Court must answer them as they are all questions which this Court or any other Court will have to face some time or the other in the conduct of original proceedings.
( 2 ) THERE are two matters before the Court. Both arise out of and relate to the estate of one Mahendra Pratap Singh. By testamentary case No. 13 of 1986 (subsequently converted into testamentary suit No. 2 of 1988) Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, the brother of the deceased, applied to the High Court for letters of administration on 18/09/1986. Notices were issued on the petition and an order for citation was also made. A year and a quarter later a petition was file by Padma Kumari seeking letters of administration on the same estate of the deceased. Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh has sought letters of administration upon a will dated 25/11/1985. Padma Kumari Devi the mother of the deceased was seeking letters of administration on a will dated 7/08/1985 and 25/11/1985, respectively. Notices were issued on the petition of Padam Kumari Devi also.
( 3 ) PLEADINGS in both the cases had been exchanged. The case filed by Narendra Pratap Singh was dismissed for want of prosecution on 31/10/1991. This case had been converted into a suit. Testamentary case No. 27 of 1987 had not been converted into a suit, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings under Chapter XXX of Rules of the High Court. One case would suffice to consider the matters on the estate of the dead man. The suit of Narendra Pratap Singh having been dismissed for want of prosecution, the case filed by the mother Padam Kumari Devi became a non-contentious business. This was case No. 27 of 1987. It had not been converted into a suit.
( 4 ) WING Commander Narendra Pratap Singh moved an application (A 28) for restoration of the suit on 21/11/1991. He gave reasons in this application supported by an affidavit why his suit needs to be restored to its original number. Lack of communication between his counsel and him kept him ignorant of the proceedings. In these circumstances he submits, that his counsel remained without instructions or did not appear but this left him facing an order for not prosecuting his suit, which was dismissed for this reasons. There are other relevant and essential facts mentioned in this affidavit accompanying this application. The application mentions that while he was a pilot in the Air Force until he retired in the year 1983 he was posted away from Dehradun. His mother, he submits is in the bondage of one Ajit Singh Panwar.
( 5 ) AJIT Singh Panwar, it is contended is Padam Kumari Devis grand daughters husband, in other words Narendra Pratap Singhs sister (Smt. Manhar Kumaris daughters husband ). The daughters name is Parnita. A petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a succession certificate, was filed on behalf of his mother, by the aforesaid Ajit Singh Panwar, stating that her son Mahendra Pratap Singh, deceased left no Will. This petition before the Delhi High Court was subsequently withdrawn to be filed before the Administrative Sub-Judge at Delhi and numbered as case No. 361 of 1986 and this also was withdrawn and dismissed as such; reference paper No. A 13 in case No. 27 of 1987.
( 6 ) THE Court notices that all the pleadings on behalf of Padam Kumari Devi had been affirmed at Dehradun at Delhi or at Allahabad. The conduct of the case was through a person who claims himself as the holder of general power of attorney of Padmakumari Devi. The contention before the Court on behalf of Narendra Pratap Singh since he has filed his application (A 28) for having his case restored is that there are no issues between him and his mother but for the fact that his mother lives by sufferance with his nieces husband. He, in effect, in his application-affidavit (A-35, A-38) contends that his mother is 87 years o
AI
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
