before the Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. In that
context while considering the provisions of Section 213 of the said Act and
the situation where probate proceedings have been filed at a place not
covered by Section 213 of the said Act, in para 5 of the said judgment it was
observed thus:
“5. The appellant's counsel then contended that Section
213 of the Succession Act which requires an executor
to obtain probate before establishing his claim under
the Will was not applicable outside the Presidency
Towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Assuming this
to be correct, we do not read Section 213 as
prohibiting the executor from applying for probate as a
matter of prudence or convenience to the courts in
other parts of the country not covered by Section 213.
Those courts are competent to entertain such
applications if made.”
The aforesaid observations indicate that the proceedings for grant of probate
were permitted to be continued despite the same having been filed in a Court
which was not covered by Section 213 of the said Act. Thus if the probate is
sought as a matter of prudence in a Court that is not covered by the
provisions of Section 213 of the said Act, such Court would be competent toentertain the application for probate. In the present case, though the
provisions of Section 213 of the said Act would not apply to seek grant of
probate, the proceedings would have to be entertained on merits.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1118 OF 2015
Nitesh Shashikant Khobragade,
been shown as an executor. In these proceedings the respondent no.1 by
filing reply has opposed the prayer for grant of probate. In view of such
opposition, the proceedings have become contentious in view of the
provisions of Section 295 of the said Act. The question however is on such
proceedings becoming contentious whether the same deserve to be dismissed
by relying upon the provisions of Section 213 read with Section 57(b) of the
said Act.
11] In Balbir Singh Wasu (supra) probate proceedings were filed
before the Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. In that
context while considering the provisions of Section 213 of the said Act and
the situation where probate proceedings have been filed at a place not
covered by Section 213 of the said Act, in para 5 of the said judgment it was
observed thus:
“5. The appellant's counsel then contended that Section
213 of the Succession Act which requires an executor
to obtain probate before establishing his claim under
the Will was not applicable outside the Presidency
Towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Assuming this
to be correct, we do not read Section 213 as
prohibiting the executor from applying for probate as a
matter of prudence or convenience to the courts in
other parts of the country not covered by Section 213.
Those courts are competent to entertain such
applications if made.”
The aforesaid observations indicate that the proceedings for grant of probate
were permitted to be continued despite the same having been filed in a Court
which was not covered by Section 213 of the said Act. Thus if the probate is
NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1118 OF 2015
Nitesh Shashikant Khobragade,
VERSUS
Anil Marotrao Khobragade,
Anil Marotrao Khobragade,
CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.
Dated : APRIL 07, 2016.
Citation:2016 (3) ALLMR821
Dated : APRIL 07, 2016.
Citation:2016 (3) ALLMR821
In view of notice for final disposal issued on 04.01.2016 the
learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
2] Admit. Taken up for final disposal with consent of parties.
learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
2] Admit. Taken up for final disposal with consent of parties.
3] This appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the said Act) challenging the order dated
27.07.2015 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur
in Probate Petition No. 6 of 2012 thereby dismissing the proceedings for
issuance of probate and granting liberty to the appellant to have the claim
adjudicated before the competent Civil Court.
4] Facts in brief are that the appellant claims entitlement to a plot of
land alongwith property constructed thereon on the basis of will executed by
Smt Manoramabai Khobragade and Shri Marotrao Khobragade on
24.09.2003. According to the appellant he had been named as executor in
the said will. The appellant therefore filed a petition under Section 276 of
the said Act for grant of probate.
The respondents herein were duly served. They filed their reply
to the aforesaid proceedings. The respondent no.1 pleaded that the appellant
had no right whatsoever under the said will and thus disputed his
entitlement. The respondent no. 2 however also claimed entitlement on the
basis of will dated 24.09.2003.
5] The appellant thereafter led his evidence in the probate
proceedings. On 08.10.2013 as the respondent no.1 and his counsel were
absent the right to crossexamine the appellant was forfeited. Thereafter on
18.09.2014 the respondent no.1 and his counsel was absent and hence the
side of the respondent no.1 was closed. On 15.11.2014 the respondent no.1
filed an application below Ex. 66 for permission to lead evidence. He also
Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the said Act) challenging the order dated
27.07.2015 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur
in Probate Petition No. 6 of 2012 thereby dismissing the proceedings for
issuance of probate and granting liberty to the appellant to have the claim
adjudicated before the competent Civil Court.
4] Facts in brief are that the appellant claims entitlement to a plot of
land alongwith property constructed thereon on the basis of will executed by
Smt Manoramabai Khobragade and Shri Marotrao Khobragade on
24.09.2003. According to the appellant he had been named as executor in
the said will. The appellant therefore filed a petition under Section 276 of
the said Act for grant of probate.
The respondents herein were duly served. They filed their reply
to the aforesaid proceedings. The respondent no.1 pleaded that the appellant
had no right whatsoever under the said will and thus disputed his
entitlement. The respondent no. 2 however also claimed entitlement on the
basis of will dated 24.09.2003.
5] The appellant thereafter led his evidence in the probate
proceedings. On 08.10.2013 as the respondent no.1 and his counsel were
absent the right to crossexamine the appellant was forfeited. Thereafter on
18.09.2014 the respondent no.1 and his counsel was absent and hence the
side of the respondent no.1 was closed. On 15.11.2014 the respondent no.1
filed an application below Ex. 66 for permission to lead evidence. He also
filed an application below Ex. 67 in which a prayer for dismissal of the
proceedings was made. In the said application it was stated that in view of
the provisions of Section 213 of the said Act, the proceedings itself were not
competent and that the requirements of Section 57 of the said Act were not
satisfied. It was then stated that as the proceedings were being contested,
the same ought to have been converted into a suit.
6] The aforesaid application was opposed by the appellant by filing
reply at Ex. 69. Reference was made to the provisions of Section 28A(1) of
the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 with regard to the manner in which
contentious proceedings were required to be decided. It was also stated
that the appellant had examined himself and one witness and had closed his
side. The respondent no.2 had thereafter filed his evidence on affidavit and
at that stage the respondent no.1 had filed the application for dismissal of the
proceedings. It was therefore stated that the proceedings ought to be treated
as contentious proceedings and decided on merits.
By the impugned order dated 27.07.2015 the learned Judge of
the trial Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 213 read with
Section 57(c) of the said Act it was not necessary to obtain probate of the
will. The application below Ex. 67 was therefore allowed and the
proceedings came to be dismissed after granting liberty to the appellant to
file appropriate proceedings for adjudication of his claim before the
competent civil Court.
7] Shri C. F. Bhagwani, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted
proceedings was made. In the said application it was stated that in view of
the provisions of Section 213 of the said Act, the proceedings itself were not
competent and that the requirements of Section 57 of the said Act were not
satisfied. It was then stated that as the proceedings were being contested,
the same ought to have been converted into a suit.
6] The aforesaid application was opposed by the appellant by filing
reply at Ex. 69. Reference was made to the provisions of Section 28A(1) of
the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 with regard to the manner in which
contentious proceedings were required to be decided. It was also stated
that the appellant had examined himself and one witness and had closed his
side. The respondent no.2 had thereafter filed his evidence on affidavit and
at that stage the respondent no.1 had filed the application for dismissal of the
proceedings. It was therefore stated that the proceedings ought to be treated
as contentious proceedings and decided on merits.
By the impugned order dated 27.07.2015 the learned Judge of
the trial Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 213 read with
Section 57(c) of the said Act it was not necessary to obtain probate of the
will. The application below Ex. 67 was therefore allowed and the
proceedings came to be dismissed after granting liberty to the appellant to
file appropriate proceedings for adjudication of his claim before the
competent civil Court.
7] Shri C. F. Bhagwani, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the proceedings for grant
of probate. He submitted that as the prayer for grant of probate was being
contested by the respondent no. 1, the procedure as prescribed by Section
295 of the said Act was required to be followed. He submitted that in fact
the appellant had led his evidence in support of the prayer for grant of
probate and after the side of the respondent no.1 was closed, the application
for dismissal of the proceedings was filed. It was then submitted that even if
it was not necessary for executor to establish his right under Section 213 of
the said Act, once the proceedings for grant of probate had been filed and the
same became contentious the proceedings were required to be decided by
following the procedure prescribed by Section 295 of the said Act. The
learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench in
Gajanan Chandrarao Sawant Vs. Mrs. Chandrabhaga Chandrarao Sawant
and others 2001(1) Civil LJ 332 and the judgment of learned Single Judge of
the Gujrat High Court in Chandravadan Manubhai alias Manwantrai Mehta
Vs. Nalini Navin Bhagwati and others AIR 1996 Gujarat 123. He therefore
submitted that the present proceedings itself can be permitted to be
converted into civil suit for being tried by the competent Court.
8] Shri M. R. Joharapurkar, the learned counsel for the respondent
no.1 on the other hand supported the impugned order. He submitted that as
the proceedings for grant of probate were not maintainable in view of
provisions of Section 213 read with Section 57 of the said Act, there was no
question of converting the proceedings for being tried as a suit. He referred
of probate. He submitted that as the prayer for grant of probate was being
contested by the respondent no. 1, the procedure as prescribed by Section
295 of the said Act was required to be followed. He submitted that in fact
the appellant had led his evidence in support of the prayer for grant of
probate and after the side of the respondent no.1 was closed, the application
for dismissal of the proceedings was filed. It was then submitted that even if
it was not necessary for executor to establish his right under Section 213 of
the said Act, once the proceedings for grant of probate had been filed and the
same became contentious the proceedings were required to be decided by
following the procedure prescribed by Section 295 of the said Act. The
learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench in
Gajanan Chandrarao Sawant Vs. Mrs. Chandrabhaga Chandrarao Sawant
and others 2001(1) Civil LJ 332 and the judgment of learned Single Judge of
the Gujrat High Court in Chandravadan Manubhai alias Manwantrai Mehta
Vs. Nalini Navin Bhagwati and others AIR 1996 Gujarat 123. He therefore
submitted that the present proceedings itself can be permitted to be
converted into civil suit for being tried by the competent Court.
8] Shri M. R. Joharapurkar, the learned counsel for the respondent
no.1 on the other hand supported the impugned order. He submitted that as
the proceedings for grant of probate were not maintainable in view of
provisions of Section 213 read with Section 57 of the said Act, there was no
question of converting the proceedings for being tried as a suit. He referred
to the provisions of Section 264(2) of the said Act and submitted that no
Notification had been issued by the State Government conferring jurisdiction
on the District Judge to grant or revoke probate in Nagpur district. It was
submitted that as the proceedings itself were not maintainable there was no
question of seeking its conversion for being tried as a civil suit. In support of
his submissions the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments in
Vishnu Ramchandra Undage Vs. Ganapati Ramchandra Undage & others
2005(4) Maharashtra Law Journal 1108 and Madhukar Rajanna Darbhe Vs.
Union of India and others 2008(2) Bom. C. R. 418. He therefore submitted
that the proceedings were rightly dismissed by the trial Court.
9] Shri Manke, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2
however supported the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh
Wasu Vs. Lakhbir Singh and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 503, it
was submitted that considering the observations made in para 5 of the said
judgment it was open for the Court to entertain an application for grant of
probate even if the matter was not covered by Section 213 of the said Act.
9] I have given due consideration to the respective submissions and
I have also gone through the records of the case. The point that arises for
determination is:
Whether the trial Court instead of dismissing the
proceedings ought to have converted the same for
being tried as a civil suit?
10] The facts on record indicate that the appellant is seeking probate
with regard to the will executed on 24.09.2003 in which the appellant hasNotification had been issued by the State Government conferring jurisdiction
on the District Judge to grant or revoke probate in Nagpur district. It was
submitted that as the proceedings itself were not maintainable there was no
question of seeking its conversion for being tried as a civil suit. In support of
his submissions the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments in
Vishnu Ramchandra Undage Vs. Ganapati Ramchandra Undage & others
2005(4) Maharashtra Law Journal 1108 and Madhukar Rajanna Darbhe Vs.
Union of India and others 2008(2) Bom. C. R. 418. He therefore submitted
that the proceedings were rightly dismissed by the trial Court.
9] Shri Manke, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2
however supported the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balbir Singh
Wasu Vs. Lakhbir Singh and others (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 503, it
was submitted that considering the observations made in para 5 of the said
judgment it was open for the Court to entertain an application for grant of
probate even if the matter was not covered by Section 213 of the said Act.
9] I have given due consideration to the respective submissions and
I have also gone through the records of the case. The point that arises for
determination is:
Whether the trial Court instead of dismissing the
proceedings ought to have converted the same for
being tried as a civil suit?
10] The facts on record indicate that the appellant is seeking probate
been shown as an executor. In these proceedings the respondent no.1 by
filing reply has opposed the prayer for grant of probate. In view of such
opposition, the proceedings have become contentious in view of the
provisions of Section 295 of the said Act. The question however is on such
proceedings becoming contentious whether the same deserve to be dismissed
by relying upon the provisions of Section 213 read with Section 57(b) of the
said Act.
11] In Balbir Singh Wasu (supra) probate proceedings were filed
before the Court which had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. In that
context while considering the provisions of Section 213 of the said Act and
the situation where probate proceedings have been filed at a place not
covered by Section 213 of the said Act, in para 5 of the said judgment it was
observed thus:
“5. The appellant's counsel then contended that Section
213 of the Succession Act which requires an executor
to obtain probate before establishing his claim under
the Will was not applicable outside the Presidency
Towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Assuming this
to be correct, we do not read Section 213 as
prohibiting the executor from applying for probate as a
matter of prudence or convenience to the courts in
other parts of the country not covered by Section 213.
Those courts are competent to entertain such
applications if made.”
The aforesaid observations indicate that the proceedings for grant of probate
were permitted to be continued despite the same having been filed in a Court
which was not covered by Section 213 of the said Act. Thus if the probate is
sought as a matter of prudence in a Court that is not covered by the
provisions of Section 213 of the said Act, such Court would be competent to
entertain the application for probate. In the present case, though the
provisions of Section 213 of the said Act would not apply to seek grant of
probate, the proceedings would have to be entertained on merits.
12] Admittedly, the appellant had already led his evidence in support
of the application as made. Though the right of the respondent no.1 to lead
evidence was forfeited, an application for setting aside said order was also
moved by the respondent no.1. In these facts therefore if the present
proceedings are permitted to be converted into a suit as the same have
become contentious, the same would result in avoiding multiplicity of
proceedings. Similar course was followed in the case of Chandravadan Mehta
(supra) by the Gujarat High Court. Similarly, the Division Bench in Gajanan
Chandrarao (supra) permitted the proceedings to be tried as a suit after
noticing the contest between the parties.
13] The judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Vishnu
Ramchandra Undage (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for
respondent no.1 refers to the proceedings for probate being filed in a city not
covered by Section 213 of the said Act. It was held that the executing Court
was not correct in holding that the will in question required probate. Said
decision is on the aspect of requirement of obtaining probate which issue
does not arise in the present case. Similarly, the decision in Madhukar
Rajanna Darbhe (supra) considers challenge to the validity of the provisions
provisions of Section 213 of the said Act, such Court would be competent to
entertain the application for probate. In the present case, though the
provisions of Section 213 of the said Act would not apply to seek grant of
probate, the proceedings would have to be entertained on merits.
12] Admittedly, the appellant had already led his evidence in support
of the application as made. Though the right of the respondent no.1 to lead
evidence was forfeited, an application for setting aside said order was also
moved by the respondent no.1. In these facts therefore if the present
proceedings are permitted to be converted into a suit as the same have
become contentious, the same would result in avoiding multiplicity of
proceedings. Similar course was followed in the case of Chandravadan Mehta
(supra) by the Gujarat High Court. Similarly, the Division Bench in Gajanan
Chandrarao (supra) permitted the proceedings to be tried as a suit after
noticing the contest between the parties.
13] The judgment of learned Single Judge in the case of Vishnu
Ramchandra Undage (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for
respondent no.1 refers to the proceedings for probate being filed in a city not
covered by Section 213 of the said Act. It was held that the executing Court
was not correct in holding that the will in question required probate. Said
decision is on the aspect of requirement of obtaining probate which issue
does not arise in the present case. Similarly, the decision in Madhukar
Rajanna Darbhe (supra) considers challenge to the validity of the provisions
of Section 57 of the said Act. Said provision has been held to be
constitutionally valid. This decision also does not assist the case of the
respondent No.1. Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Balbir Singh Wasu (supra) as a matter of prudence if a party applies
for grant of probate even in a Court not covered by Section 213 of the said
Act, such proceedings can be entertained.
14] The trial Court relied upon the provisions of Section 213 read
with Section 57(c) of the said Act while dismissing the proceedings.
Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balgir Singh
Wasu (supra) in the facts of the present case if the present proceedings are
permitted to be converted into a civil suit for adjudication as the same have
become contentious, such course would serve the ends of justice. The point
as framed is answered by holding that the trial Court ought to have itself
converted the proceedings into a civil suit for being tried on merits instead of
dismissing the same.
15] Accordingly following order is passed:
1] The order dated 27.07.2015 passed below Ex. 67 and the
consequential order passed below Ex. 1 is quashed and set aside.
2] The probate proceedings are restored on the file of the trial
Court. The trial Court shall pass appropriate order in terms of Section 295
of the said Act for treating the proceedings as contentious. The proceedings
shall be decided on their own merits without being influenced by any
observations in this order. It would be open for the parties to raise
constitutionally valid. This decision also does not assist the case of the
respondent No.1. Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Balbir Singh Wasu (supra) as a matter of prudence if a party applies
for grant of probate even in a Court not covered by Section 213 of the said
Act, such proceedings can be entertained.
14] The trial Court relied upon the provisions of Section 213 read
with Section 57(c) of the said Act while dismissing the proceedings.
Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balgir Singh
Wasu (supra) in the facts of the present case if the present proceedings are
permitted to be converted into a civil suit for adjudication as the same have
become contentious, such course would serve the ends of justice. The point
as framed is answered by holding that the trial Court ought to have itself
converted the proceedings into a civil suit for being tried on merits instead of
dismissing the same.
15] Accordingly following order is passed:
1] The order dated 27.07.2015 passed below Ex. 67 and the
consequential order passed below Ex. 1 is quashed and set aside.
2] The probate proceedings are restored on the file of the trial
Court. The trial Court shall pass appropriate order in terms of Section 295
of the said Act for treating the proceedings as contentious. The proceedings
shall be decided on their own merits without being influenced by any
observations in this order. It would be open for the parties to raise
appropriate defences in accordance with law. The record of the proceedings
be sent to the trial Court forthwith.
3] The First Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
be sent to the trial Court forthwith.
3] The First Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment