Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 148
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Sinha, Deo
GOSWAMI RAMESHPURI GURU MAHESHPURI AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
MADHUKAR AND ORS – Respondent
Civil Revision No. 472 of 1948
Decided on : 26-12-1952
D B Padhye, D T Mangalmurti, J M Dharaskar, P S Pultamkar, S R Mangrulkar, T L Shevde, V T Kedar, W K Sheorey, Advocates
An administration suit is maintainable to enforce the rights of legatees under a will, and the suit is properly valued under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act.
Headnote:
ADMINISTRATION SUIT - MAINTAINABILITY - COURT FEES - VALUATION - ADMINISTRATION SUIT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF LEGATEES' RIGHTS UNDER WILL - MAINTAINABLE - COURT FEES PAYABLE UNDER SECTION 7(IV)(F), COURT FEES ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, illegitimate sons of the deceased Goswami Maheshpuri, filed a suit for administration of his estate in accordance with his will. The will provided for payment of funeral expenses, maintenance of plaintiffs' mothers and sisters, education and marriages of plaintiffs and their sisters, and other legacies and debts. The residuary of the property was to be divided equally between plaintiffs and defendant 1. The executors appointed by the will were plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 1 denied the will and claimed the entire property as sole heir. The lower court held that the suit was maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was maintainable as an administration suit. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit as legatees under the will and that the suit was not barred by the absence of a probate or letters of administration. The court also held that the suit was properly valued under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable as an administration suit. 2. Whether the suit was properly valued under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An administration suit is maintainable to administer the estate of a deceased person who has left no executor. It consists of getting in the debts due to the deceased, collecting his other assets, payment of funeral expenses, payment of his secured and unsecured creditors, payment of pecuniary and other legacies, and after defraying the cost of management, final distribution of the remaining estate among the residuary legatees or amongst heirs as the case may be. 2. The amount of court-fees payable should be determined by the allegations of the Plaintiff in the plaint as to the cause of action and reliefs and not on what is pleaded by the Defendant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for revision and upheld the decision of the lower court.
Deo, J—The facts leading to this application for revision are - On 30-7-1943 Goswami Maheshpuri took Defendant 1 as his 'chela'. On 3-8-1943 he executed a will and he died on 23-8-1943. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 who are his illegitimate sons have instituted the suit out of which this application for revision arises for administration of the estate of the deceased in terms of the will.
2. The will makes provision for funeral expenses, maintenance of Plaintiffs' mothers and sisters & of other dependants and relatives specified in the will, and makes provision for education and marriages of Plaintiffs 2 and 3 and then-sisters, and for other legacies and payment of the secured and unsecured debts. Directions have been given as regards the manner of liquidation of these debts. After payment of all these debts and legacies, the residuary of the property is to be divided equally between Plaintiffs 1 to 3 on the one hand and Defendant 1 on the other. There is a direction that the estate should not be divided between them till the debts are paid off and till all the residuary legatees become major. In order to carry out his intention as expressed in the will, the testator appointed a committee of executors consisting of Ramnathji Tiwari as the managing executor, Defendants 3 and 4, Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and Defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 2 is the natural father of Defendant 1 and brother of Ramnathji.
3. At the death of Goswami Maheshpuri Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and Defendant 1 were minors. On his death, Ramnathji Tiwari tried to manage the estate according to the directions in the will till his death a few months later. Defendant 2 did not concur in this management. Defendants 3 and 4 declined to act as executors. Since the death of Ramnathji, disputes arose between Plaintiffs 1 to 3 on the one hand and Defendants 1 and 2 on the other. Defendant 1 denied the will and claimed as sole heir the entire property left by the deceased. However, the names of Defendant 1 and Plaintiffs 1 to 3 were substituted in pending civil litigations specified in para 4 of the plaint.
4. In view of these disputes and the fact that the executors Plaintiffs 1 to 3 on the one hand and Defendants 1 and 2 on the other are arrayed on opposite sides, it is alleged in the plaint that administration of the testator's estate according to the directions in the will is not possible without the intervention of the Court and that the suit was therefore, brought for an enquiry, accounts and administration of the estate left by Maheshpuri at his death in accordance with the directions in the will through an administrator or receiver appointed by the Court.
5. The plaint gives the details of the property and the nature of the debts and other liabilities to be paid off and further states that Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are entitled to half share in the remaining-property. The creditors are joined to enable the Court to ascertain the debts and help the administration of the estate. It is stated that the Plaintiffs do not insist on partition till Defendant 1 becomes major and that till then the estate should be administered in accordance with the will.
6. Plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purpose of court-fees and jurisdiction at Bs. 1,00,000 under Section 7(iv)(f), Court-fees Act & have paid court-fees accordingly. It is stated that in case it is ultimately found that the value of the Plaintiffs' share exceeds this figure, they are willing to pay the requisite balance of court-fees.
7. The Plaintiffs prayed for (a) taking of accounts of the estate from the date of the death of the testator till the residuary legatees are placed in possession;
(c) determination of the property to which the Plaintiffs will be entitled to possession as residuary legatees; and
(d) directing delivery of possession of such property on or about the date to be fixed by the Court.
They prayed for a preliminary decree for accounts, enquiries and administration suitable to the case, and a suitable final decree.
8. The executo
