2019 (1) TMI 1921 - HC - Indian Laws

Application by beneficiary of will - Whether the application under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the Succession Act) can be made only by a beneficiary or legatee, who accepts the Will and, as to whether it cannot be made by a person who seeks to dislodge the Will or contest the application for probate or Letters of Administration with Will annexed? HELD THAT - It is now more than well settled position of law that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the statute to the contrary. It is also equally well settled that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. It could thus be seen that it is the cardinal principle of construction of statute that when language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the Court is required to give effect to the words used in the statute and it will not be open to the Court to adopt hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. Only if, on going through the plain meaning of the language of the statute, it is found that it leads to anomalies, injustices and absurdities, the Court may look in to the purpose for which the statute has been brought and would try to give meaning, which would adhere to the purpose of the statute - It is also equally well settled that casus omissus is not to be readily inferred. It is equally well settled that for the purpose of providing casus omissus, all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with a reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction to be put on a particular provision makes a consistent enactment of the whole statute - Only when the provision is found to be ambiguous, it will be permissible for the Court to take recourse to the other principles of interpretation. Perusal of Section 301 would reveal that the said provision cannot be said to be ambiguous or one, leading to anomalies, injustices and absurdities. It will be relevant to note that Section 301 falls in Part IX of the Succession Act, which deals with Probate, Letters of Administration and Administration of Assets of Deceased. Perusal of Section 234 of the Succession Act shows that it deals with grant of administration where no executor, nor residuary legatee nor representative of the said legatee is available - It could thus be seen that the question that could be considered by the probate court, is restricted only to find out as to whether the document put forward as the last Will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. The Caveator is entitled to contest the said proceedings. The finding of the learned Single Judge that application under Section 301 for removal of executor can be made only by a beneficiary and legatee who accepts the Will and cannot be made by a person who seeks to dislodge the Will or contest the application for probate or Letters of Administration with Will annexed, is not sustainable. The order of learned Single Judge holding that Misc. Petition was and was not maintainable is quashed and set aside - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether an application under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, can be made only by a beneficiary or legatee who accepts the Will.
2. Whether a person contesting the Will can seek the removal of an executor and the appointment of a successor.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether an application under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, can be made only by a beneficiary or legatee who accepts the Will:

The central question was whether Section 301 permits only those who accept the Will to file an application for the removal of an executor. The learned Single Judge had concluded that such an application could only be made by a beneficiary or legatee who accepts the Will, positing that the application for removal inherently accepts the Will. The Single Judge's interpretation was based on the premise that allowing a contesting party to file under Section 301 would enable them to "approbate and reprobate," which is legally untenable.

However, upon review, it was determined that Section 301 does not explicitly restrict the class of persons who can apply for the removal of an executor. The statute's language is clear and unambiguous, and no such limitation is provided within the statute. The principle of statutory interpretation dictates that when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to the words used without inferring omissions or hypothetical constructions. Therefore, the appellate court found that the learned Single Judge's interpretation was incorrect and that the statute does not limit the right to apply under Section 301 to only those who accept the Will.

2. Whether a person contesting the Will can seek the removal of an executor and the appointment of a successor:

The appellants argued that their Misc. Petition under Section 301 was independent and not a miscellaneous proceeding within the testamentary suit. They contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in treating it as such. The appellate court noted that the learned Single Judge had previously allowed an amendment to correct this error, thereby recognizing the Misc. Petition as an independent proceeding.

Further, the appellate court examined whether a person contesting the Will could seek the removal of an executor. The court emphasized that the function of a probate court is limited to verifying the genuineness and due execution of the Will. However, if an executor acts dishonestly or misappropriates the estate during the pendency of probate proceedings, the court must have the power to intervene under Section 301 to remove the executor and appoint a successor. The court referenced the case of Vasant Narayan Sardal, where the court had removed an executor and appointed an officer of the court in their place, thus demonstrating that the court's jurisdiction under Section 301 is not limited to those who accept the Will.

The appellate court concluded that the learned Single Judge's finding that an application under Section 301 could only be made by a person who accepts the Will was not sustainable. The statute does not debar a person contesting the Will from making such an application. Therefore, the court held that the Misc. Petition filed by the appellants under Section 301 was maintainable.

Conclusion:

The appellate court allowed the appeal, quashing the order of the learned Single Judge that held the Misc. Petition was not maintainable. The matter was remitted to the learned Single Judge to decide the Misc. Petition on its merits, clarifying that the appellate court had not considered the merits of the case but only the maintainability of the Misc. Petition. The Notices of Motion taken out in the appeal were also disposed of.

← Previous Next →