1991 (11) TMI 263 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of an Administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
2. Validity of the Will and six Codicils of the deceased.
3. Management and protection of the deceased's estate, particularly M/s. Broadacres Stud Farm and valuable race horses.
4. Allegations of interference and mismanagement by the 1st respondent.
5. Jurisdictional conflict between the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court of Bombay.
6. Application for stay of proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appointment of an Administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925:
The petitioners filed an application for the appointment of an Administrator pendente lite to manage the estate of the deceased, Suresh C. Mahindra, pending the resolution of the main proceedings concerning the validity of the Will and six Codicils. The court noted that it is well-settled law that an Administrator pendente lite can be appointed if there is a pending dispute regarding the validity of the Will and the preservation of property is necessary until the dispute is resolved. The court found that the probate proceedings were pending, and the Will and six Codicils had been produced in court, establishing a prima facie case for their validity. The court concluded that it was just and proper to appoint an Administrator to manage the estate, particularly given the renunciation of the executors named in the Will.

2. Validity of the Will and six Codicils of the deceased:
The 1st respondent contested the validity of the Will and six Codicils, alleging that they were bogus and fabricated. The court acknowledged this dispute but emphasized that the question of validity would be decided in the probate proceedings. The court noted that the Will and Codicils prima facie showed that they were executed by the deceased and that the bulk of the estate, including M/s. Broadacres Stud Farm, was within the court's jurisdiction. The court also noted that the 1st respondent had filed a suit in the High Court of Bombay challenging the Will and seeking administration of the estate under the Hindu Succession Act.

3. Management and protection of the deceased's estate, particularly M/s. Broadacres Stud Farm and valuable race horses:
The petitioners argued that the 1st respondent's interference was causing considerable loss and damage to the estate, including the death of valuable race horses. They requested that Mr. Rashid Byramji, a reputed race horse trainer and close associate of the deceased, be appointed as Administrator. The court agreed that the estate, particularly the race horses, needed professional management to prevent further loss and damage. The court found that Mr. Rashid Byramji was a suitable candidate for the role of Administrator due to his expertise and integrity.

4. Allegations of interference and mismanagement by the 1st respondent:
The petitioners alleged that the 1st respondent was interfering with the properties of the deceased, attempting to dispose of assets, and handling business affairs without proper knowledge or experience. The court noted these allegations and found that the 1st respondent's actions were causing disarray and potential loss to the estate. The court concluded that appointing an Administrator was necessary to protect the estate and manage it effectively.

5. Jurisdictional conflict between the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court of Bombay:
The 1st respondent argued that the High Court of Bombay was already seized of the matter and that the High Court of Karnataka should not exercise its powers under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act. The court rejected this argument, stating that the probate proceedings in Karnataka were distinct from the suit filed in Bombay, which was based on inheritance as on intestacy. The court emphasized that the issues in the probate proceedings were different from those in the Bombay suit and that the High Court of Karnataka had jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the Will and Codicils.

6. Application for stay of proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The 1st respondent filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the probate proceedings in Karnataka until the final disposal of the suit in Bombay. The court examined the contentions and found that the issues in the probate proceedings were distinct from those in the Bombay suit. The court noted that the probate proceedings were at an interlocutory stage, and the trial had not commenced in either suit. The court concluded that there was no ground to stay the probate proceedings and rejected the application for stay.

Conclusion:
The court appointed Mr. Rashid Byramji and Mr. Marthand Singh Mahindra as Administrators pendente lite to manage the estate of the deceased, excluding the right to distribute the estate. The court emphasized the need for professional management to protect the valuable assets of the estate and rejected the 1st respondent's application for stay of proceedings. The appointment of Administrators was deemed necessary and just under the circumstances, and the court directed that the Administrators act under its immediate control and direction.