9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Necessity of probate or letters of administration under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act. 2. Application of res judicata. 3. Application of estoppel. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Re. (i) Necessity of probate or letters of administration under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act: The primary issue was whether it was necessary to obtain probate or letters of administration for the will executed by Dr. Miss Mitter in favor of Mrs. Mitter, as neither probate nor letters of administration were obtained. Section 213(1) of the Indian Succession Act states: "No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the will annexed." This section creates a bar to the establishment of any right under a will by an executor or a legatee unless probate or letters of administration of the will have been obtained. The appellant argued that it was not necessary for Mrs. Mitter to have obtained probate of the will of Dr. Miss Mitter in her favor. However, the Court held that since the appellant wanted to establish that Mrs. Mitter was the legatee of Dr. Miss Mitter and thus entitled to the whole house, she could only do so if the will of Dr. Miss Mitter had resulted in the grant of probate or letters of administration. As this did not happen, Section 213(1) barred the appellant from establishing the right of her mother as a legatee from Dr. Miss Mitter. Re. (ii) Application of res judicata: The appellant contended that the suit was barred by res judicata. However, the Court found that the appellant failed to point out any judgment inter partes in which the question of title to the house had been decided, which would bar the plaintiff-respondent from raising the question of title in the present suit. The Court noted that questions of title are not decided in proceedings for the grant of probate or letters of administration. Therefore, whatever happened in those proceedings would not establish the title to the house either of the appellant or of Mrs. Mitter. Specifically, the Court referred to an order of the High Court dated December 17, 1948, where the application of the plaintiff-respondent for letters of administration of the will of Dr. Miss Mitter was dismissed due to non-appearance, which did not constitute res judicata regarding the title to the property. Consequently, the contention on this head was rejected. Re. (iii) Application of estoppel: The appellant argued that the plaintiff-respondent was estopped from contesting the title of Mrs. Mitter to the property in dispute. The main reliance was on Mrs. Bose's applications for the grant of letters of administration of a will alleged to have been made in her favor by Mrs. Mitter, where she showed the house as if it belonged to Mrs. Mitter. However, the Court held that proceedings for the grant of probate or letters of administration do not concern titles. Further, estoppel, as per Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, arises when one person, by declaration, act, or omission, intentionally causes or permits another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief. The Court found no evidence that Mrs. Bose intentionally caused or permitted the appellant to believe that the house belonged to Mrs. Mitter and to act on that belief. Therefore, no question of estoppel arose in this case. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was upheld, which declared that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to half the house in dispute. No order as to costs was made.
|
