9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of probate court to stay proceedings in another court. Analysis: The case involves an application for revision against an order staying a sale in an execution case by the District Judge of Birbhum. The dispute arises from claims filed by family members of a debtor against the sale of inherited properties. The main issue is whether the probate court has jurisdiction to stay proceedings in another court, not directly related to the probate matter. The judgment discusses the inherent power of courts to stay proceedings for convenience and substantial justice. It cites precedents like 'Abdul Alim v. Badaruddin Ahmed' and 'Hukum Chand v. Kamalanand Singh' to support the concept of inherent power to postpone hearings. However, the key argument revolves around whether the probate court, in this case, had the authority to issue a stay order on the execution proceedings. The court delves into the powers of the probate court under the Indian Succession Act, specifically Sections 247 and 269. These sections empower the probate court to appoint an administrator pendente lite and interfere in other proceedings to protect testamentary properties. The judgment emphasizes that the probate court can issue temporary orders to safeguard assets pending the grant of probate or letters of administration. Furthermore, the judgment clarifies that the proper application in this scenario should have been for the appointment of an administrator pendente lite, not a stay order. It highlights the need to show that the property subject to execution is linked to the testamentary disposition. The court directs the probate court to treat the previous petition as an application for the appointment of an administrator pendente lite, ensuring both parties can present their arguments. In conclusion, the High Court makes the Rule absolute, setting aside the stay order and directing the District Judge to proceed with the appointment of an administrator pendente lite. The judgment emphasizes expediting the probate proceedings and allows both parties to present their case without costs in the High Court. The concurring opinion of Justice Guha aligns with the decision, solidifying the outcome of the case.
|
