Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA AND OTHERS - Appellant
Versus
VIMLA DEVI AND OTHERS - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 2077 of 2010
Decided on : 24-04-2019
Indian Succession Act - Probate Proceedings - Section 247 of Act, 1925 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Section 247), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Section 8) - The court discussed the scope of Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and its applicability in the case, as well as the rights of legal heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a probate petition for the will of a deceased person and a subsequent application under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for possession of property and buses. The court analyzed the possession of the respondent, the rights of the appellants as legal heirs, and the applicability of Section 247 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's possession over the property and buses was not in the capacity of an administrator under Section 247 of the Act, 1925, and that the appellants, as legal heirs, were entitled to possession and accounts for the use of the buses.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the applicability of Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the rights of legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the nature of the respondent's possession over the property and buses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term of the administrator appointed under Section 247 of the Act, 1925 terminates with the disposal of the probate proceedings, and that the respondent's possession was not in the capacity of an administrator. The court also emphasized the rights of legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the trial court's refusal to grant the prayer for possession of the buses and directing the respondent to submit accounts and pay an amount for the use of the buses, as well as hand over possession of the buses to the appellants or pay the value of the buses to the appellants.
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.05.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Meerut whereby, the court below has dismissed the application of appellants under Section 247 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1925") registered as Misc. Case No. 70 of 2007 in Probate Misc. Case No. 229 of 1974.
3. The brief facts as borne out from the records are that one Kanti Prasad was doing transport business in Meerut. He died on 29th August, 1974. Smt. Vimla Devi, respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no.1') wife of sister's son of deceased Kanti Prasad filed a petition under Section 299 of the Act, 1925 numbered as Misc. Case No. 229 of 1974 for grant of probate of will dated 29.08.1974 before the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Meerut which is said to have been executed by deceased Kanti Prasad in favour of respondent No.1 with respect of the whole property detailed in Annexure 1 at the end of the probate petition.
4. It appears that during the pendency of the probate petition, respondent no.1 filed an application 57 (c) seeking leave of the court to obtain permit in respect of buses detailed in Annexure A of the petition. On 19.4.1976, the court below passed the following order on the said application:-
"I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Smt. Bimla Devi shall obtain temporary permits, if possible, in the name of Kanti Prasad otherwise in her own name and shall continue to operate the four buses left by Kanti Prasad. She shall also maintain regular and correct accounts. These accounts shall be filed on the first of every month."
5. The aforesaid probate petition was contested by the Jayanti Prasad, father of appellant nos.1 and 2 and brother of deceased Kanti Prasad. The probate petition was dismissed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Meerut by judgment and order dated 17th August, 1983 on the ground that the language used in the will dated 29.08.1974 suggests that executant was settling the property in favour of respondent no.1 immediately after execution of will, therefore the said document did not fulfill the requirement of valid will.
6. Feeling aggrieved, Respondent no.1 preferred F.A.F.O. No.570 of 1983 before this Court challenging the order dated 17th August, 1983 passed by the court below rejecting the probate petition of respondent no.1. In the said appeal, this Court passed an order dated 23.01.1984 permitting the father of the appellant Jayanti Prasad to obtain permit of the buses. The order of this court dated 23.01.1984 is reproduced herein-below:-
"The appellant has made a claim to ply the vehicles in question under a will dated August 29, 1974. The application made for grant of probate has been rejected on August 17, 1983. During the pendency of that proceeding, the District Judge made an interim order dated 19.4.1976, providing that the appellant shall, if possible obtain temporary permits in the name of Kanti Pd. and shall continue to operate his four buses left by Sri Kanti Pd, deceased. It was further directed that appellant shall also maintain a regular and correct account and submit the same to the Court. The probate application being rejected, this interim order has obviously lapsed. In these circumstances, until further orders, the respondent no. 1 shall be entitled to operate buses in question in the capacity of an Administrator, subject to his obtaining temporary permits, if possible, and he shall as well maintain and submit correct and regular accounts in the court of the Additional District Judge, Meerut. The appellant shall make available to the respondent the vehicles in question upon the respondent having obtained the permits, as mentioned above, to operate the same."
7. It appears that respondent no.1 instead of complying with the interim order of this Court dated 23.01.1984 preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C
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
