9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dispute arising from an application for probate 2. Appointment of an administrator pendente lite for properties under a will 3. Validity and propriety of the administrator's appointment Analysis: 1. The dispute originated from an application for probate filed by Amal Chandra Mustafi, joined by Guruprosad Mustafi, regarding a will executed by Hem Nalini Devi. The contentious application was transformed into a plaint due to disputes. Defendant Shoilesh contested the proceedings after being served summons. 2. An application for appointing an administrator pendente lite was filed during the suit, alleging that defendant Shoilesh had taken possession of a property covered by the will without fulfilling obligations. Shoilesh claimed the property was dedicated to a Deity and objected to the appointment. The District Judge appointed an administrator despite objections, which was challenged by the defendant in this appeal. 3. The appellant contended that the District Judge erred in disregarding the objector's claim to the property's title and necessity for appointing an administrator. The Court highlighted the importance of considering conflicting claims when appointing an administrator pendente lite, emphasizing the need to prevent unjust dispossession based solely on inclusion in a will. 4. The Court examined the deed of dedication executed by Hemnalini Devi in 1939, appointing herself as the first sebait, which raised questions about her disposing power in the subsequent will of 1950. The Court emphasized the need to consider such claims when appointing an administrator, contrary to the District Judge's ruling. 5. Referring to a previous case, the Court reiterated that the question of title and possession should be prima facie considered when appointing an administrator pendente lite if the objector asserts an independent claim. The Court upheld the appellant's right to raise title and possession issues, criticizing the lower court's denial of this right. 6. Regarding the propriety of appointing an outsider as an administrator for the disputed property, the Court deemed it unnecessary. The property, a four-storey building with tenants, was occupied by the appellant, who was a co-sebait. The Court canceled the administrator's appointment for this property, ensuring safeguards against waste or mismanagement. 7. The Court directed the appellant to take possession of the property, manage it responsibly, pay taxes, submit accounts, and deposit surplus funds in court. Failure to comply would allow the opposite party to renew their application for an administrator. The probate case was instructed to proceed promptly, with costs to be borne by the parties themselves. Both judges concurred with the judgment.
|
