N.S.Chopra vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 435 Del

*             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