Kapileshwar Singh vs Maharani Adhirani Kamsundari & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3169 Cal/2

                                                                        1




                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA


                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                         ORIGINAL SIDE


Present:


THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HARISH TANDON
              &
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS


                                 APO No. 35 of 2021
                                       with
                                 PLA No. 18 of 1963

                                  Kapileshwar Singh

                                         Vs.

                      Maharani Adhirani Kamsundari & Ors.

Appearance:

For the Appellant           :        Mr. Ahin Choudhury, Sr. Adv.
                                     Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv.

                                     Mr. Souvik Majumdar, Adv.

                                     Mr. Soumabho Ghose, Adv.

                                     Ms. Ananya Das, Adv.



For the Respondent No. 1     :       Mr. Rishav Dutt, Adv.

                                     Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Al-Ruadin, Adv.

                                     Ms. Vaibhavi Pandey, Adv.

                                     Mr. Soumalyo Ganguly, Adv.



For the Respondent No. 2     :       Mr. Jayanta Mitra, Sr. Adv.
                                     Ms. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.

                                     Ms. Sohini Bhattacharyya, Adv.
                                                                              2




Judgment On                  :     23.12.2022




Harish Tandon, J.

The instant appeal arises from the order dated 9th February, 2021

passed by the Single Bench disposing of 6 applications filed by the parties to

the proceeding by appointing the three Special Officers to administer the

estate of Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwara Singh Bahadur of Darbhanga

upon discharging the committee of management.

By virtue of last Will and Testament of the said Maharajadhiraja Sir

Kameshwara Singh Bahadur, the properties were intended to be settled in

favour of the beneficiaries under the said appeal. An application for probate

was taken out before this Court by an executor appointed under the said

Will and Testament dated 5.7.1961 which was duly granted on 26.9.1963.

The disputes subsequently arose in relation to the administration of

the estate of the said Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwara Singh Bahadur

and ultimately the matter reached to the Supreme Court. A family

settlement was entered into on March 27, 1987 and the same was filed

before the Supreme Court in a pending proceeding. The said family

settlement was accepted by the Supreme Court by an order dated October

15, 1987 and one of the relevant clauses contained in the said family

settlement was that there shall be a committee of beneficiaries consisting of

Maharani Kamsunderi Devi, Rajkumar Subheshwar Singh (and one

representatives of the beneficiaries of the other branches) for distribution of

the shares of the other properties and administration of the estate within a

period of 5 years or an extended time or within such time extended by the

Court. Since the administration of the estate could not be completed within

initial period of 5 years, an application was taken out before the Court for

extension of the said time which was extended by an order dated May 7,

1993 for a period of 3 years by the Supreme Court.

Though the time was further extended by the Supreme Court yet, the

implementation of the family settlement could not be achieved and

ultimately, the trustees under the said family settlement applied for their

discharge before the Supreme Court. Initially the prayer was refused but

later on the Supreme Court allowed the prayer and discharged the trustees

subject to the filing of the accounts to be verified by the Committee of

management as constituted in terms of the earlier order.

Subsequently, by an order dated 25.6.1998, the committee of

management consisting of the parties were replaced by the members of the

Bar who were directed to dispose of and sell the residuary properties of the

estate of the said testator either by public auction or by private treaty within

two years from the said date. The keys of the treasury was also directed to

be handed over by the trustees to the committee of management who were

further entrusted to distribute and handed over the jewelleries, ornaments,

golds, utensils and antiguan. The record would further reveal that despite

being the constitution of a committee of management consisting of 3

members of the Bar, the estate of the testator could not be administered in

terms of the family settlement and by consent of parties, the said committee

of management was discharged by an order of the High Court dated 20th

January, 2003 appointing Kapileshwar Singh, the appellant herein,

Subheshwar Singh and Maharani Kamsundari Devi as committee of

management to deal with the property in terms of the order passed in the

instant proceedings.

In course of the proceedings Subheshwar Singh died and his son

Rajeshwar Singh was included in the committee of management which

continued till date. Ironically, the estate of the testator has not been

administered as yet as the parties filed several applications in the instant

proceeding seeking various directions relating to the release of funds from

the corpus lying with the Registrar, Original Side and the appointment of

the Special Officer. Subsequently, the Special Officer was appointed and the

retired Judge of this Court was nominated as the Special Officer under

whose supervision and guidance the committee of management would

function.

Five meetings were held by the Special Officer and the resolution was

passed which the Special Officer in its wisdom thought fit and proper. An

application was taken out by the appellant for setting aside the fourth and

fifth sitting of the Special Officer being GA no. 14 of 2021 by the impugned

order. Six applications were taken up together for the reliefs indicated

hereinbefore including the setting aside of the minutes of the fourth and

fifth sitting of the Special Officer which have been disposed of by the

impugned order. The Single Bench found that the allegation against the

Special Officer, the retired Judge of the High Court in GA 14 of 2021

contains unsavoury words which cannot be appreciated and ultimately, the

applicant withdrew the said application but because of the intemperate

expression having been used in the said application the Single Bench

imposed a cost to the tune of 10 lakhs to be paid by the appellant to the

State Legal Services Authorities from the fund which he is entitled from the

corpus lying with the Registrar, Original Side. Simultaneously, the Single

Bench discharged the committee of management and appointed three

Special Officers out of which two are the retired Judge of the High Court and

one the retired Additional District and Session Judge, Sahibganj.

Kapileshwar Singh, the appellant herein challenged the said order in

the instant appeal not only on the score of the discharge of the committee of

management and appointment of three Special Officers but also the

imposition of costs.

Our attention is drawn by the respective Counsels to the various

orders passed in course of these proceedings and all the Counsels are

unison on the score that the estate of the testator should be administered in

terms of the family settlement. A point has been taken by the appellant that

though the application for discharge of the committee of management and

appointment of the Special Officer being GA no. 11 of 2018 was taken out

yet there was no occasion on the part of the Single Judge to discharge the

committee of management solely on the ground that some remarks were

made by one of the members of the committee of management against the

Special Officer.

It is to place on record that during the course of the proceedings the

Special Officers appointed in terms of the impugned order have conducted a

meeting and the report was submitted before this Court which is lying on

record. The appellant is very much critical on the role of Maharani

Kamsundari Devi represented by the constituted Attorney to put a spanner

in every such resolution taken in the meeting held by the Special Officer

which impedes the progress of administration of the estate left by the

testator.

Indubitably, the trustees appointed in terms of the family settlement

could not administer the estate of the testator and were replaced by the

committee of management which continued over a decade yet the entire

estate could not be administered as of now and the main concern in relation

thereto is to bring end to the impasse having been created by the members

of the committee of managements, beneficiaries and the legatees under the

said Will. The litigation cannot be allowed to remain in the docket of the

Court eternally. The concern of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court

in the instant litigation was to bring end to the litigations after

administration of the estate left by the testator which could not be fructified

as on the date.

The various modalities were explored by appointing the trustees

committee of management and the Special Officer but the desired result

could not be achieved. Allegations and counter-allegations were made in the

litigations not only against one or other members of the committee of

management but also the Special Officer and, therefore, it is the ardent

duty of the Court to bring end to the litigations by administering the estate

of the testator in its entirety. Simply because there is some observations, not

expected in a litigation cannot be projected affront for the purpose of

discharge of the committee of management and replacement with the

appointment of the Special Officers being completely unoblivion of the

nature of the estate and various litigations pending in the different Courts

against the squatters/trespassers of the estate, even the Counsel appearing

for the appellant and Maharani Kamsundari Devi uniformly submit that

there was no occasion to scrap the committee of management and

appointment of the Special Officers which has not been seriously disputed

by the Counsel representing the Rajeshwar Singh.

The Court of probate is a Court of conscience and administration of

the estate of the testator being the integral part of the dispensation, the

Court should be slow and circumspect in uprooting the existing modalities

which was continuing for over a decade. The Special Officer was appointed

to supervise and guide the committee of managements which was accepted

by the parties and the allegations made by the appellants to the minutes of

the fourth and fifth sitting was subsequently withdrawn. It is contended by

the appellant in the instant appeal that such withdrawal was made on a

threat being perpetrated by the Single Judge which is evident from some of

the grounds enumerated in the memorandum of appeal. The Special Officer

was the retired Judge of the High Court and it is beyond cavil of any doubt

that the person who hold such high post should be treated in the manner as

indicated in the grounds incorporated in the memorandum of appeal; even

apart there are aspersions made against the Single Bench in the ground of

appeal contained in the memorandum of appeal which is not appreciated. It

lies within the exclusive wisdom of the litigant whether to withdraw the

application or not and, therefore, it is inconceivable that such withdrawal

was a resultant effect of the threat being perpetrated by the Single Bench.

There is no iota piece of evidence which is forthcoming in this regard and

such bald allegations cannot be treated lightly but a strong message must

be percolated in the litigants to protect and preserve the sanctity of the

Courts. The imposition of costs on a perceived consideration may not have

been appropriate but the subsequent conduct of the appellant cannot be

brushed aside nor overlooked. The fairness and transparency in wisdom is

the hallmark of dispensation of justice. The litigant shall not be allowed to

undermine the sanctity, majesty and the confidence which the people of the

country reposed upon the Court and, therefore, such unsavoury and

scurrilous remark made against the Court cannot be viewed lightly. We,

therefore, do not intend to interfere with the cost imposed upon the

appellant by the Single Bench and such portion of the order is uninterfered

with.

So far as the main issue is concerned, the committee of management

was working over a decade and several steps have been taken under the

supervision and guidance of the Special Officer. The allegation made by one

of the applicant does not appear to have been substantiated to replace the

committee of management nor we find any justification in this regard. The

unsubstantiated allegations should not play the pivotal role for discharge of

the committee of management and the appointment of the Special Officers to

administer the estate. Even though the Special Officers appointed in terms

of the impugned order have held the meeting and submitted the report but

we find that there was no justification to discharge committee of

management. The portion of the order by which the committee of

management was discharged and the three Special Officers were appointed

are hereby set aside.

The committee of management is directed to continue with the

administration of the estate of the testator. An endeavour shall be shown to

complete the exercise within six months from date.

We cannot overlook the important fact that the Special Officer has

expressed his intention nor to continue in such capacity which we

appreciate in view of the unsavoury expressions having been used against

him though later on withdrawn and, therefore, the said Special Officer is

hereby discharged.

We appoint Mr. Gopal Kumar Roy, the Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Sahibganj (retired) as a Special Officer under whose

supervision and guidance the committee of management shall function.

The Special Officer shall held the periodic meeting of the beneficiaries

of the committee of management to monitor the progress of the

administration of the estate, at least twice in a month. The minutes of each

of such meeting shall be circulated upon the beneficiaries in electronic mode

and all the beneficiaries shall provide the e-mail to the Special Officer.

Since the minutes of the fourth and fifth sitting of the erstwhile Special

Officer remained on record as the appellant subsequently withdrew the

application challenging the same, the direction passed in the said meeting

shall be carried out by the Special Officer appointed in terms of the said

order and shall see that the entire work is completed as expeditiously as

possible. The committee of management under the guidance and supervise

of the Special Officer shall indicate the mechanisms for due administration

of the estate on the basis of meeting to be called by the Special Officer and

shall act on the basis of the directions passed by the Special Officer in this

regard. The remuneration of the Special Officer is fixed at Rs. 1 lakh per

month to be paid from the corpus of the estate. The appeal is disposed of in

the orders made hereinabove.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be

made available to the parties subject to compliance with requisite

formalities.

       I agree.                                         (Harish Tandon, J.)




(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)