VATSALA SRINIVASAN Vs. NARISIMHA RAGHUNATHAN
LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-106
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 19,2011

VATSALA SRINIVASAN Appellant
VERSUS
NARISIMHA RAGHUNATHAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SARAT CHANDRA BANERJEE VS. NANI MOHAN BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
DATTA VS. MANMATHA NATH DATTA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
P. RAMA NAIDU & ORS. VS. RANGAYYA NAIDU & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU PRASHAD AGARWAL VS. BHOLA RAM AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND M ASRANI VS. JAIRAM ASRANI [REFERRED TO]
Madhukar Venkatesh Ullal of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant VS. Anita Hermy DSouza [REFERRED TO]
THIRTY SAM SHROFF VS. SHIRAZ [REFERRED TO]
MANEKJI MANCHERSHA JAVERI VS. PHIROZE BOMAN JAVERI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

USHA KIRAN ANAND NARAYAN KALWAR VS. SHIVPRASAD SHANKARLAL PARDESHI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
KIRITBHAI MELABHAI TADVI VS. NARMADASHANKAR PREMJIBHAI DAVE [LAWS(GJH)-2013-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHIRIN BAMAN FARAMARZI OF BOMBAY ZOROASTRIAN IRANIAN INHABITANT VS. ZUBIN BOMAN FARAMARZI OF BOMBAY UBDUAB INHABITANT [LAWS(BOM)-2013-9-146] [REFERRED TO]
ELLORA SADHUKHAN VS. TAPAN KUMAR SAHA ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
JAMILA GULFAM DESAI VS. JAMIR ABDULMUJIR SHILEDAR [LAWS(BOM)-2024-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJUMON SHIVARAJAN PANICKER VS. CHANDRAVADAN PRANLAL DOSHI [LAWS(BOM)-2023-6-1176] [REFERRED TO]
GAYABAI HEMLAL JADHAV VS. HIRAMAN [LAWS(BOM)-2011-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
JASPREET SINGH VS. SURJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-223] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This Appeal raises the issue as to whether a sole beneficiary under a will can seek substitution instead and in place of an executor who has died during the pendency of a testamentary proceeding. The Testamentary Suit for probate of the will of the testatrix is pending for over seven years; evidence is complete and the suit was ripe for final hearing when the sole executor died. The learned Single Judge allowed the Chamber Summons by the Respondent for substitution and granted the prayer for converting the proceeding formally into one for Letters of Administration with the will annexed. The Appellant contends that the remedy open to the Respondent is to file a fresh Petition for Letters of Administration with the will annexed and the probate proceedings which came to an end with the death of the executor cannot be continued. For the reasons which follow, we have concluded that the law is not what the Appellant contends it is. A purposive interpretation which safeguards litigants against a multiplicity of proceedings and the attendant delay and expense is in accordance with the intent and the letter of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Facts.

(2.)The Appellant is the original Defendant in a Testamentary Suit instituted by the sole executor named under a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased testatrix. The Respondent is the sole beneficiary under the will. The executor had filed a Petition for probate which was converted into a Testamentary Suit upon a contest. The trial commenced and the evidence of seven witnesses was recorded. Evidence is complete and the suit was to be heard. At this stage the executor died. On his death the Respondent took out a Chamber Summons for substitution in place of the sole executor and for seeking the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed, instead of a probate. The application was allowed, following which an Appeal has been filed.
(3.)The relevant facts are that the will is alleged to have been executed on 4 January 2001 by the mother of the Appellant and the Respondent. Under the will the property is bequeathed to the Respondent. The testatrix died on 1 March 2003. The sole executor appointed under the will applied for probate on 24 June 2003. The sole executor died on 3 July 2010. The Chamber Summons was lodged on 29 July 2010 and was allowed by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 16 August 2010.
Submissions.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.