TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1, 2, 3 and 6. While the Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 6 are the sons of the deceased, the Respondent No. 3 is their daughter and the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 are her husband and son respectively. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No. 1270 of 2005 for impleading the Appellants herein as parties to the suit and to challenge the alienation of two properties, one to Prolific Consultancy Services (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and the other to the Appellants herein. By judgment and order dated 13th February, 2006, the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowed the Chamber Summons and permitted the plaint to be amended as a result whereof the appellants herein stood impleaded as defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... haser of a property belonging to the deceased testator should be impleaded as a party in a probate proceeding. While answering the said question, this Court held that since a probate can be granted only to an Executor appointed by a Will, a transferee of a property during the pendency of such a proceeding is not a necessary party. 7. As an offshoot of her main argument, Ms. Arora submitted that, in any event, in a probate proceeding the Court does not decide any question of title in respect of the Estate of the deceased and any order passed in the proceedings acts as an order in rem. Ms. Arora submitted that even on such score, the appellants were not necessary parties to the administration suit and their impleadment in the suit by the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment of the appellants as necessary parties in the administration suit filed by the respondent No. 1, particularly when both Dwarkadas Sanghvi and Vimlaben Sanghvi had died intestate. 11. It is well settled that in an administration suit, the Court, while considering the grant of authority to an individual having an interest in the Estate of the deceased to administer the Estate, has also to determine the extent of the estate of the deceased at the time of his death to facilitate the distribution of the estate to all the heirs of the deceased. It is equally well settled that during such enquiry the Court is not called upon to determine the right and title of the parties in the properties of the Estate, but to ascertain the extent of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of his properties, can be gone into in an administration suit and that there is no bar to a Court determining the validity of transactions allegedly entered into by or on behalf of the deceased, whose Estate is to be administered. In Appendix D to the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with the forms of decrees in different suits, Form 17 indicates the form in which preliminary decrees in Administration Suits are to be passed. Paragraph 3 of the Form deals with suits filed by the next of kin of the deceased who dies intestate, as in the instant case, and provides for an inquiry to be made and account taken of what or of what share, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to as next-of-kin in the moveable properties of the Estate. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
