2006 (2) TMI 727 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of the suit.
2. Administration of the estate of the plaintiff's parents.
3. Challenge to the alienation of properties.
4. Impleading additional respondents.
5. Validity of transactions executed by the deceased.
6. Jurisdiction of the court in an administration suit to decide on the validity of alienations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Amendment of the Suit:
The plaintiff's Chamber Summons sought to amend the suit to include six additional respondents as defendant Nos. 7 to 12. The plaintiff also aimed to challenge the alienation of two properties, one to respondent No. 1 and the other to respondent Nos. 2 to 6. The court noted that the proposed amendments clearly indicated that the plaintiff did not admit the execution of the impugned documents, referring to them as "allegedly entered into" and "purportedly entered into."

2. Administration of the Estate:
The suit was for the administration of the estate of the plaintiff's parents, who expired on 18.3.2002 and 28.12.2004, respectively. Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 6 are the plaintiff's brothers, Defendant No. 3 is the plaintiff's sister, Defendant No. 4 is the husband of Defendant No. 3, and Defendant No. 5 is their son.

3. Challenge to the Alienation of Properties:
The plaintiff sought to challenge the alienation of properties to respondent No. 1 (a closely held company with shares held by Defendant Nos. 3, 4, and 5) and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 (members of the Khandelwal family, unrelated to the parties). The court observed that the plaintiff had not admitted the execution of the documents and alleged fraud and forgery in the transactions.

4. Impleading Additional Respondents:
The court found no hesitation in granting the amendment to implead respondent No. 1, as it was not a stranger to the family. However, respondent Nos. 2 to 6, represented by Mr. E.P. Bharucha, contended that they were strangers to the family and should not be embarrassed by being impleaded in the trial. The court disagreed, stating that the issues involving respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were intertwined with those involving the other defendants and respondent No. 1.

5. Validity of Transactions Executed by the Deceased:
The court addressed the argument that in an administration suit, the validity of transactions executed by the deceased could not be challenged. It referenced various judgments, including Mt. Mohd. Zamani Begam and Ah Kyan Sin, and concluded that the court had the power to decide ancillary questions relating to the administration, such as setting aside deeds obtained by fraud. The court emphasized that the plaintiff had not admitted the execution of the documents and alleged fraud and collusion in the transactions.

6. Jurisdiction of the Court in an Administration Suit:
The court discussed the jurisdiction to determine the validity of alienations in an administration suit, referencing judgments such as Benode Behari Bose and Motibhai Shankarbhai Patel. It concluded that the court had the power to decide whether the assets belonged to the estate of the deceased and that refusing the amendment would result in protracted and involved proceedings. The court held that in cases where the challenge to the title or right of a third party is based on allegations against persons responsible for the transactions, the court would more readily permit the challenge in the administration suit itself.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the plaintiff's Chamber Summons for amendment of the suit, permitting the inclusion of additional respondents and the challenge to the alienation of properties. The court emphasized that it had not considered the merits of the matter on facts and clarified that the amendments should be carried out by 12.6.2006, with the operation of the order stayed until 5.5.2006.