1975 (8) TMI 151 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the District Judge to entertain the petition for the grant of Letters of Administration.
2. Maintainability of the petition for Letters of Administration.
3. Due execution, attestation, and genuineness of the Will.
4. Appointment of the guardian for the minor's property.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the District Judge to entertain the petition for the grant of Letters of Administration:
The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the District Judge based on Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, arguing that the High Court alone had jurisdiction for matters exceeding Rs. 50,000. The Court held that Section 5(2) confers ordinary original civil jurisdiction on the High Court only in relation to "every suit" and does not extend to testamentary and intestate jurisdiction. The District Judge retained jurisdiction in such matters, and the High Court had concurrent jurisdiction under Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act.

2. Maintainability of the petition for Letters of Administration:
The appellants argued that the petition was not maintainable because it did not mention the testator's property in Goa. The Court found that the Indian Succession Act did not apply to Goa during the material period, and the omission to mention the Goa property did not affect the jurisdiction of the District Judge or the maintainability of the petition. The Court concluded that the petition was competent even if it did not include the Goa property, as the District Judge had jurisdiction over the property within his territorial limits.

3. Due execution, attestation, and genuineness of the Will:
The Court examined the evidence of the attesting witnesses, Public Witness 1 (Shri Chet Ram Mittal, Advocate) and Public Witness 2 (J.D. Cruz), who confirmed the testator's sound disposing mind and the proper execution of the Will. The Court addressed the alleged suspicious circumstances, including inconsistencies in the Will, deprivation of the elder son and widow, and influence of the younger son's wife. The Court found that these circumstances did not cast doubt on the genuineness of the Will. The testator's advanced age and health conditions were considered, but the evidence supported the finding that he was of sound disposing mind when he executed the Will.

4. Appointment of the guardian for the minor's property:
The District Judge appointed the younger son as the guardian of the minor's person and property, subject to executing a bond. The Court upheld this appointment, finding no grounds to interfere with the decision.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the judgments of the District Judge granting Letters of Administration and appointing the guardian were upheld. The Court found that the District Judge had jurisdiction, the petition was maintainable, the Will was duly executed and genuine, and the appointment of the guardian was appropriate. The objections to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the petition were overruled, and the evidence supported the findings of the District Judge.