Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (4) TMI 2154 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional error in appointing Administrator pendente lite.
2. Justifiability of appointing Administrator pendente lite.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Error in Appointing Administrator Pendente Lite:
The appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed a jurisdictional error by expanding the scope of testamentary proceedings, which should only concern the validity and genuineness of the Will, not the property in question. The appellant argued that the testamentary court does not have inherent power to pass interim orders related to property protection, as per the judgments in Rupali Mehta Vs. Smt. Tina Narinder Sain Mehta and Ramchandra Ganpatrao Hande alias Handege Vs. Vithalrao Hande & Ors.

However, the court clarified that the testamentary court has the jurisdiction to appoint an administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which empowers the court to appoint an administrator to manage and preserve the estate during the pendency of a suit regarding the validity of a Will. The court emphasized that this provision ensures the estate is managed and preserved for those ultimately entitled to it. The court thus rejected the jurisdictional challenge raised by the appellant.

2. Justifiability of Appointing Administrator Pendente Lite:
The court examined whether the appointment of an administrator pendente lite was justifiable based on the facts of the case. The court noted the strained relations between the testator, the respondent, and the appellant, and the series of legal proceedings initiated by the testator and the respondent against the appellant, including allegations of misappropriation and waste of the estate by the appellant.

The court considered the appellant's actions, such as the execution of gift deeds transferring properties to his first wife and daughter, and the payment of substantial amounts from the hotel business to his first wife, despite a decree of divorce. The court found that these actions indicated an urgency of purpose and a potential threat to the preservation of the estate.

The court also took into account the fact that the Will propounded by the appellant itself bequeathed the estate to the respondent, albeit for her lifetime, and that the appellant had been managing the hotel business and utilizing its income for personal obligations. The court concluded that there was strong material indicating that the appellant was wasting the estate and that the appointment of an administrator pendente lite was necessary to protect and preserve the estate.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appointment of the respondent as an administrator pendente lite to manage and preserve the estate of the deceased testator. The court found that the learned Single Judge acted within jurisdiction and that the appointment was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The request for a stay of execution and operation of the impugned order was also rejected.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates