* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TEST CASE No.38/2013
Decided on : 23.01.2014
N.S.CHOPRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Khurana, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Purnima Maheshwari, Adv. for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. The question to be decided in the instant matter is as to whether the present case is maintainable in Delhi in respect of an immovable property situated in Faridabad. Before dealing with the aforesaid question, it will be pertinent to give a brief background of the case.
2. The petitioner Sh.N.S.Chopra has filed a test petition (although in my view it ought to have been a LA case) claiming that Sh.Ranjit Chopra, his brother (deceased), was an ordinary resident of Faridabad, Haryana. The deceased had left behind immovable assets in the form of a residential flat at first floor rear portion of property No.2286 Sector A, measuring 388.89 square yards (325.11 square metres) forming a part of Khasra No.48/17, in the residential colony known as 'GREENFIELDS', Faridabad, Haryana. In addition to this, he had left behind certain bank accounts having some monies and some FDRs in Delhi. The petition was originally filed before the District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi who assigned the same to ADJ-I, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. The petition was returned by the court of ADJ on the ground that the valuation of the property as shown by the petitioner himself was Rs.21 lakhs and, therefore, the court held that it did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the case.
3. Thereafter the present petition was filed in the High Court. Notice was issued to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority with regard to valuation of the immovable property in question who gave the report assessing the value of the property to be approximately Rs.24 lakhs. Notice had simultaneously been issued to the standing counsel for the respondent/State.
4. The learned standing counsel for the respondent has appeared and raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the instant petition on the ground that the deceased Sh.Ranjit Chopra was ordinarily a resident of Faridabad and the property in question was situated in Faridabad, therefore, the court at Faridabad only had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition for grant of letters of administration.
5. This plea was refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that no doubt the deceased Sh.Ranjit Chopra was an ordinarily resident of Faridabad, but he had bank accounts in Delhi. Therefore, this court also has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments being Test Case No.23/2006 titled Smt.Gita Bawa v. State and Ors, decided on 05.10.2007 and Smt.Kanta v.State and Anr.; AIR 1985 Delhi 453 to support his submission.
6. I have gone through both these judgments, the pleadings as well as the record.
7. Before dealing with the issue as to whether the Delhi court has the jurisdiction or not, it would be pertinent here to refer to certain provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, under which the petitioner is claiming the letters of administration. The Sections 270 & 271 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read as under:
"270. When probate or administration may be granted by District Judge.- Probate of the will or letters of administration to the estate of a deceased person may be granted by a District Judge under the seal of his Court, if it appears by a petition, verified as hereinafter provided, of the person applying for the same that the testator or intestate, as the case may be, at the time of his decease had a fixed place of abode, or any property, moveable or immoveable, within the jurisdiction of the Judge.
271. Disposal of application made to Judge of district in which deceased had no fixed abode.- When the application is made to the Judge of a district in which the deceased had no fixed abode at the time of his death, it shall be in the discretion of the Judge to refuse the application, if in his judgment it could be disposed of more justly or conveniently in another district, or, where the application is for letters of administration, to grant them absolutely, or limited to the property within his own jurisdiction."
8. A reading of Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 clearly lays down that if the deceased had a fixed place of residence or any of the movable or immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court where the petition is filed, then that court has the jurisdiction to entertain the same and it may grant the letters of administration. Section 271 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 can be treated to be an exception to Section 270 inasmuch as it lays down that if the deceased did not have a fixed place of residence in the jurisdiction of the District Judge where the petition is filed, then the District Judge of that district may refuse the application if in his judgment it is just and convenient for another District Judge where he had fixed place of residence to grant the same or alternatively he may grant letters of administration only limited to the extent to the property which is situated in that district.
9. A conjoint reading of these provisions would show that the legislative intent is that the person applying for letters of administration ought to file a petition at a place where he had fixed place of residence or where the movable/immovable property is situated or conversely before the District Judge where such a petition is filed may limit the grant of letters of administration only to the properties which are situated in the said district.
10. Since, in the instant case, the deceased Sh.Ranjit Chopra, did not have a fixed residence in Delhi at the time of his death, therefore, it confers discretion on the judge to grant letters of administration or refuse to entertain the application, if in his judgment it could be disposed of more justly or conveniently in another district or where the application is for letters of administration to grant them absolutely or limited to the property within its own jurisdiction.
11. In the instant case, admittedly it is not in dispute that Mr.Ranjit Chopra the brother of the deceased petitioner was not having ordinarily fixed place of residence of Delhi and this is an averment made by the petitioner Sh.N.S.Chopra in his petition. Even the death of Mr.Ranjit Chopra has not taken place in Delhi. The immovable property is not situated in Delhi. In such an contingency, merely because some of the movable properties by way of accounts of the deceased or the FDRs were in Delhi would not be, in my considered opinion, would not be a ground for entertaining the petition in Delhi when it can be more justly or conveniently be disposed of by the District Judge at Faridabad. The reason forming this opinion is that the deceased was ordinarily a resident of Faridabad and, therefore, in all likelihood in case a citation is published, it will have to be done in the local newspaper which has a circulation in Faridabad. There may be some persons who may be interested in the properties both movable and immovable owned by the deceased or there may be certain liabilities which the deceased was under an obligation to discharge that these persons would never come to know about the grant of letters of administration by a Delhi court because the citation has been published in English daily, Delhi which may or may not come to their notice in Faridabad.
12. Therefore, keeping the aforesaid totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that it will be just and proper in case the petition for grant of letters of administration is filed in Faridabad court where the deceased was living ordinarily.
13. With these directions, the petition is directed to be returned to be filed in an appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly.
14. The petition stands disposed of.
IA No.8344/2013
1. No directions are called for on this application.
V.K. SHALI, J.
JANUARY 23, 2014 dm