Madras High Court
Anila Shashikant Bhai Kothari vs Nipun Navnit Mehta on 22 January, 2025
C.R.P.(PD)No.4388 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.4388 of 2024
Anila Shashikant Bhai Kothari ... Petitioner
Vs.
Nipun Navnit Mehta ... Respondent
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in the I.A.No.5 of
2023 in O.S.No.270 of 2023 dated 25.06.2024 on the file of the learned I
Additional District Judge at Salem, by allowing the above Civil Revision
Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manohar
For Respondent : Mr.G.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel
For Mr.B.Ravi Raja
& Ms.S.Vijayadharani
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is at the instance of the plaintiff. It
challenges the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge,
Salem in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.270 of 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. O.S.No.270 of 2023 is a suit for partition and separate possession.
According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule mentioned properties were the
self-acquired properties of one Sreekant Surajmal Mehta. He passed away
on 22.10.2021. Sreekant Surajmal Mehta did not have any class one legal
heirs. He had six siblings in all - two brothers and four sisters. Of the six,
four are no more and only two are alive. The plaintiff claims that she is the
sister of the deceased Sreekant Surajmal Mehta. She pleaded she came to
know that the third defendant, one Nipun Navnit Mehta, had projected a
“WILL” said to have been executed by the said Sreekant Surajmal Mehta
and had initiated proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay. Pleading that the “Will” is an act of fabrication and not a genuine
one, she contended that intestate succession would operate and therefore she
is entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased.
3. On being served with summons, the third defendant filed his
written statement. He pleaded that Sreekant Surajmal Mehta, the deceased
had executed a Will on 19.06.2011, which had been duly attested by two
witnesses. He conceded that the properties are self-acquired properties of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the deceased Sreekant Surajmal Mehta and added that as they were his self-
acquired properties, it is well within the right of the deceased to bequeath
the properties as per his wish. He further pointed out that he had presented
Testamentary Petition No.2599 of 2022 and Testamentary Suit No. 24 of
2023 before the Bombay High Court. He pleaded that as the “WILL” had
come into operation on the death of Sreekant Surajmal Mehta, the suit for
partition is not maintainable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the same. By
way of abundant caution, he also reserved his right to file an additional
written statement after disposal of the proceedings before the Bombay High
Court.
4. Simultaneously, he filed an application in I.A.No.5 of 2023. This
was an application filed under Section 10 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure pleading that the partition suit be stayed till the disposal of
Testamentary Suit No.24 of 2023 and Testamentary Petition No.2599 of
2022 pending before the Bombay High Court. Notice was ordered in the
application and the respondent filed a detailed counter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The respondent pleaded that the proceeding before the Bombay
High Court is not a “suit” within the meaning of Section 10 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. She added that the issue of jurisdiction had been raised in
the Bombay High Court in the testamentary suit and testamentary petition.
Therefore the partition suit need not be stayed. She further pleaded that the
probate proceeding ought to have been initiated before the learned District
Judge, Salem and having been initiated before the Bombay High Court,
there is no necessity for the suit in Salem to be stayed pending disposal of
the testamentary suit and testamentary petition in Bombay High Court.
6. The learned District Judge took up the application for disposal. He
found that the issue whether Sreekant Surajmal Mehta had passed away
intestate or had left behind a Will can be decided only after the Bombay
High Court decides on the validity of the Will projected before it.
Consequently, he allowed the application. Hence this revision.
7. When the matter came up for admission, I heard Mr.V.Manohar
and Mr.B.Raviraja on behalf of the respective parties. Mr.V.Manohar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pleaded that the parties being close relatives, there is a possibility of
settlement. Therefore, I adjourned the matter repeatedly to enable the parties
to settle the same. Unfortunately, the matter could not be settled. Hence I
took up the revision for final disposal. Today, I heard Mr.V.Manohar for the
civil revision petitioner and Mr.G.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for
Mr.B.Raviraja and Ms.S.Vijayadharani for the respondent.
8. Mr.V.Manohar, referring me to Section 10 of the Code of the Civil
Procedure argues that the suit can be stayed only if the previously instituted
proceeding is a “suit”. He pleads that the probate proceeding before the
Bombay High Court not being a “suit”, Section 10 of the Code of the Civil
Procedure itself is inapplicable. Secondly, he points out that as the issue of
jurisdiction has been raised before the Bombay High Court and as the
Division Bench of that Court directed the learned Single Judge, dealing with
the testamentary suit and petition, to deal with the issue of jurisdiction as
preliminary issue, even if one were to assume that the testamentary
proceedings are “suits”, no suit is pending as on today. Thirdly, he urges
that the stay that has been granted by the learned Trial Judge is till the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
disposal of Testamentary Suit No.24 of 2023 and Testamentary Petition
No.2559 of 2022. He states that if the Bombay High Court were to return
the plaint, then, the order of stay should not be held to be in operation.
Finally, he urged that Section 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure applies
only for “trial of suit” and does not bar the learned District Judge to deal
with the interlocutory applications filed in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2023. He
further pointed out that as the stay is only for trial, there is no bar for the
parties to complete the pleadings. On these grounds, he urged that the order
of the learned Trial Judge requires interference. He relied upon the
following judgments:-
(i) Dr.H.T.Veera Reddi Vs. Kistamma, (1973) 86 LW 776,
(ii) Vee Cee Yes Granites Chennai Vs. Central Bank of India - 2000
(II) CTC 664,
(iii) National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs.
C.Parameshwara - (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 256,
(iv) Aspi Jal & anr Vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor - (2013) 4
SCC 333,
(v) Mallika Dharmaraj and anr Vs. The Executive Officer of
Arulmigu Visweswara and Arulmigu Veeraraghava Perumal Temple &
ors - 2014-5-L.W.324 and
(vi) Lalit Upadhyay & ors Vs. The Civil Judge, Nathdwara & ors -
2019 (4) RLW 3180.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Per contra, Mr.G.Rajagopal states that the proceeding in
O.S.No.270 of 2023 had been initiated after the summon had been served in
the testamentary suit and testamentary petition filed before the Bombay
High Court. He invites my attention to paragraph No.8 of the plaint,
wherein the plaintiff has conceded that the testamentary claim has been filed
before the Bombay High Court, and points out that the plea of the plaintiff
is that the “WILL” being an act of fabrication, she is entitled for partition. In
other words, he points out that the plaintiff disputes the “WILL” presuming
that Sreekant Surajmal Mehta had passed away intestate. Since there is a
dispute over the “WILL”, it has to be appropriately addressed by the Court
in which the probate proceedings are pending viz., High Court of Judicature
at Bombay. He further points out that on the presentation of the plaint and
on it being taken on file, it is deemed to be pending and therefore, the
revision does not deserve any consideration. On the plea of written
statement, he states that the third defendant has already filed his written
statement and therefore, there cannot be any direction to file a written
statement in the partition suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.
11. There is no dispute in the relationship between the parties. There
is also no dispute that the properties, which are the subject matter of the
suit, are self-acquisitions of the deceased Sreekant Surajmal Mehta. The
plaintiff/civil revision petitioner pleads that the said Sreekant Surajmal
Mehta passed away intestate. Whereas the third defendant pleads that the
said Sreekant Surajmal Mehta had executed a testament dated 19.06.2011.
Being a person to whom Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act applies,
the third defendant has moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay for
obtaining a probate of the Will.
12. In case, the probate is granted, then, it is a certification by the
Court, that the said Sreekant Surajmal Mehta did not die intestate, but had
left behind a “WILL”. The issue before the Bombay High Court is whether
the “WILL” is true and genuine. In case, the Bombay High Court were to
come to a conclusion that the “WILL” is true and genuine, then the basis of
the proceeding before the suit in Salem, that the said Sreekant Surajmal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Mehta died intestate, would vanish.
13. In case, the Bombay High Court comes to a conclusion that the
“WILL” projected by the third defendant is an act of fabrication and
dismisses the testamentary petition on that ground or on the ground that it
does not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with the proceedings and further
steps are not taken thereafter, then the suit in Salem deserves to be
continued to its logical conclusion. The issue before both the Courts is
whether Sreekant Surajmal Mehta died intestate or had left behind the Will.
14. As rightly contended by Mr.G.Rajagopal, the plaint before the
Salem Court concedes to the fact that the third defendant has projected a
“WILL” and has also initiated proceedings for grant of probate before the
Bombay High Court. This implies the previously instituted proceeding is
pending before the said Court.
15. This now takes me to the argument of Mr.V.Manohar that a
testamentary original suit cannot be considered as “Suit” within the meaning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Here, I only have to refer to
Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act. It states that where there is a
contention as regards testament, then the proceeding shall, as nearly as may
be, take the form of a regular suit, according to the provisions of the Code
of Civil Procedure. It also declares that the propounder of the “WILL” shall
be declared as plaintiff and the person who opposes the grant shall be the
defendant. Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act makes it abundantly
clear that contentious testamentary proceeding is deemed to be “a suit”. In
the present case, summons have been served on the civil revision petition in
the testamentary suit and testamentary petition pending before the Bombay
High Court. Further, the civil revision petitioner, in those proceedings, has
taken out an application disputing the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay
High Court. That being the case, it is only apposite to infer that the
testamentary proceedings before the Bombay High Court has become
contentious and therefore, squarely falling within the ambit of Section 295
of the Indian Succession Act. Hence I am not inclined to accept the
arguments of Mr.V.Manohar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. The next submission of Mr.V.Manohar is that as he has raised the
issue of territorial jurisdiction before the Bombay High Court, the suit
cannot be held to be “pending” for the purpose of Section 10 of Code of
Civil Procedure. A proceeding is commenced on the date it is instituted.
There is a difference between “institution” and “presentation”.
“Presentation” implies that the papers have been presented to the Registry
of a Court and are yet to receive scrutiny. “Institution” implies that the
papers have been presented, scrutinised and have been taken on file in terms
of the Original Side Rules or as per Order VII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
17. In the facts of this case, there is no dispute that Testamentary
Petition No.2599 of 2022 and Testamentary Suit No.24 of 2023 were not
only presented before the Bombay High Court but they have also been
instituted. In other words, the papers have been presented, scrutinised and
taken on file by the Court. The suit is deemed to be pending from the time it
has been instituted till it is finally disposed of by the said Court. For the
mere fact that the issue of territorial jurisdiction has been raised by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant in the testamentary proceedings, it does not mean that the suit is
not pending. The defendant can raise as many number of pleas as is
permissible under law, but it is finally for the Court to decide whether it has
jurisdiction or not. In fact, the Calcutta High Court in A.E.Forbes Vs.
V.G.Peterson, AIR 1941 Cal 417 and the Oudh Chief Court in
re.Mrs.Violet Peterson, AIR 1940 Oudh 113, have held that the date on
which an application for probate is made must be taken to be the date on
which the testamentary proceedings are instituted. Therefore, the mere filing
of the application challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay
High Court would not mean that the testamentary proceedings are not
instituted.
18. If I were to concede to the argument of Mr.V.Manohar, then for
the very fact that the defendant had raised a plea that the Court has no
jurisdiction, I would have to hold that the suit is not pending. I am not
willing to lay down such a drastic and startling proposition of law. As long
as the Bombay High Court has not passed an order that it does not have
jurisdiction, I have to take it as a matter of fact that the suit is pending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
before the said Court.
19. With respect to the alternative plea that was placed by
Mr.V.Manohar that the stay should be granted only till the disposal of the
application which was taken out to decide the territorial jurisdiction of the
Bombay High Court is concerned, I have the following to say.
20. If the Bombay High Court were to come to the conclusion that it
does not have territorial jurisdiction, obviously it is going to return the
plaint. In such an event, the suit can be said to be pending from the date on
which it was instituted till the date on which an order is passed by the said
Court returning the plaint. It does not not matter whether the actual return
of the papers is taken by the parties, but suffice it to state till such an order
is passed, the suit is deemed to be pending. In the event that the Bombay
High Court takes a view that the plaint has to be returned for want of
territorial jurisdiction, then, automatically the stay granted by the learned
Trial Judge under the impugned order will fall to the ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. Now turning to the authorities cited by Mr.V.Manohar, the first of
the judgments in Dr.H.T.Veera Reddi Vs. Kistamma, is one relating to
whether the Court dealing with Section 9(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act has
the power to grant an order of stay or injunction restraining the defendant
from proceeding further with the other suit instituted in a different Court
under the jurisdiction of a different High Court. The learned Judge,
following the Supreme Court, held that such power is available. I am not in
a position to apply the said judgment to the facts of this case since that case
dealt with the situation of one Court granting an order as against the party
before it not to proceed with a proceeding initiated by that party before
another Court. The case that I am presented with deals with the situation
where the Court has decided that it will stay the suit pending before it. It has
not granted stay of the suit pending in a Court either subordinate to it or
pending before any other Court. Anti-suit injunction cannot be compared
with stay of a suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
22. In the second judgment in Vee Cee Yes Granites Chennai Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Central Bank of India, it was a situation where the suit was presented for
recovery of money before the City Civil Court for alleged misdemeanour
committed by the defendants in handing over the bills of entry. The plaintiff
in that suit had taken loan from the Central Bank of India and had defaulted
in payment of the same. Therefore, the Central Bank of India, subsequent to
the presentation of the first suit, initiated proceedings before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal at Chennai for recovery of amounts due to it. Hence, the
plaintiff in the first suit filed application under Section 10 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, seeking stay of proceedings before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, pending disposal of his suit.
23. This case too as pointed out above was the situation where the
plaintiff wanted an order of stay of proceeding pending before another
Court. In order for Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to apply, it
should be an order passed by the Court to which the application is filed to
stay the proceeding pending before that Court and not before a different
Court. In addition, factually it is seen that the learned Judge held that
Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to “Courts” and not
between the Courts and Tribunal. Further, he found that the cause of action
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for the parties to file a suit before the High Court was not the same as the
proceedings initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It was on those
reasons, he came to the conclusion that the application under Section 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure deserves dismissal. None of the special
characteristics that are found in that case are available in the present case.
Hence, that judgment too does not apply.
24. The third judgment that Mr.V.Manohar relied upon is the classic
case of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs.
C.Parameshwara. The facts reveal that the application under Section 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking stay of proceedings before a
Civil Court, pending disposal of a money suit initiated by the appellant,
before the Supreme Court. The facts are relevant for the purpose of showing
how it is inapplicable to this case.
25. The respondent before the Supreme Court was an employee with
National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS). He
allegedly malversed funds belonging to NIMHANS. Hence, NIMHANS
presented a suit for recovery of that sum before the City Civil Court at
Bangalore. Simultaneously, it also initiated disciplinary proceedings against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the respondent. Consequent to the disciplinary proceedings, it dismissed the
employee from service. He challenged the dismissal by way of proceeding
under the Industrial Disputes Act. He succeeded in the said proceedings.
NIMHANS challenged the order of the Labour Court, directing it to
reinstate the respondent into service, by way of writ petition before the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P.No.24348 of 2002. The respondent
filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the
suit filed for recovery of money seeking stay of the proceedings pending
disposal of the writ petition challenging the order of reinstatement.
26. The trial Court as well as the High Court took a view that the suit
has to be stayed, pending the writ petition. This order was challenged before
the Supreme Court.
27. The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.H.Kapadia, as his Lordship then was,
laid down the test for application of Section 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. He held as follows :-
“8.......... The object of Section 10 is to prevent Courts of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two
parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same
matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is,
whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit,
such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent
suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the
subject matter in both the suits is identical. The key words
in Section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and
substantially in issue" in the previous instituted suit. The
words "directly and substantially in issue" are used in contra-
distinction to the words "incidentally or collaterally in issue".
Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of
the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the
whole of subject matter in both the proceedings is identical.”
The test is that the finding given by the Court in a suit previously instituted
should operate as res judicata on the subsequent proceeding. Coming to the
conclusion that the order of reinstatement will not operate as res judicata
for recovery of money, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that
the Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is inapplicable.
28. If I were to apply the judgment to the facts of the present case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
instead of going in favour of Mr.V.Manohar, it goes against him. This is
because, as pointed out above, the issue before the Bombay High Court is
whether the deceased Sreekant Surajmal Mehta died intestate or had he left
behind a “WILL”. If the Bombay High Court were to answer the issue in
favour of the third defendant, obviously, it will operate as res judicata on
the learned District Judge, Salem.
29. I now turn to the next judgment in Aspi Jal & anr Vs. Khushroo
Rustom Dadyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333. That was a case where a landlord
instituted three separate proceedings for eviction on the same ground of
ceasing to occupy the premises. It was argued by the tenant that as the
ground for eviction in all the proceedings are same, the suits also have to be
stayed. The Supreme Court pointed out that the cause of action for each of
the suits are different and for the fact that the first two suits would fail, does
not mean that the third suit would automatically fail. The cause of action
being different, the Court refused to apply Section 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. In our case, the cause of action for the partition suit as well as
the probate proceedings is the death of Sreekant Surajmal Mehta. If he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
died intestate, then, it makes sense to proceed with the partition suit. One of
the defendants has taken a plea that he did not die so. Therefore, the cause
of action being the death of Sreekant Surajmal Mehta and that being similar
in both the cases, this judgment too doesn't apply to the facts of the case.
30. Now, I have to refer the judgment in Mallika Dharmaraj and anr
Vs. The Executive Officer of Arulmigu Visweswara and Arulmigu
Veeraraghava Perumal Temple & ors, 2014-5-L.W.324. That was the case
where a suit for declaration and injunction was presented. Simultaneously,
proceedings had been initiated under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams
(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The proceedings were
pending before this Court in S.T.A.No.39 of 1976. The defendants pleaded
that since the STA proceedings were pending, the suit must be stayed till the
disposal of the former proceedings. The trial Court also granted relief of
stay. This Court came to a conclusion that settlement proceedings before a
Settlement Tahsildar under the Ryotwari Settlement Act are not “suits” and
hence, Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is inapplicable. In the
previous portion of the judgment, I have already discussed that the
testamentary original suit, which became contentious in terms of the Section
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
295 of the Indian Succession Act, is “a suit” for the purpose of Section 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, I am not in a position to apply
the said judgment.
31. Finally, I turn to the judgment in Lalit Upadhyay & ors Vs. The
Civil Judge, Nathdwara & ors, 2019 (4) RLW 3180. It was a case where
the learned Judge applied the judgment in the celebrated National Institute
of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. C.Parameshwara case. I have
discussed the said case in detail and I have concluded that the issue of the
genuineness of “WILL” will operate as res judicata on the Civil Court. In
fact, the probate proceeding is one-in-rem and therefore, this judgment too
does not help Mr.V.Manohar.
32.Therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the
learned I Additional District Judge, Salem in staying the suit pending before
him, till the disposal of the probate proceedings initiated before Bombay
High Court. As regards, the plea that the defendant must be called upon to
file his written statement. The papers reveal that the third defendant has
filed his written statement. Hence, no direction to complete the
pleadings is necessary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
33. At this stage, I should refer to Rule 2(6) of the Civil Rules of
Practice and Circular Orders issued by this Court in the exercise of the
power under Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to Rule
2(6), the “first hearing of the suit” has been defined as “includes the hearing
of a suit for settlement of issues and any adjournment thereof”. This implies
the suit will be “called on for hearing” for the purpose of “trial” only after
the pleadings are complete. In terms of Section 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the stay granted by the Court is only for trial pending before it.
Therefore, an order under Section 10 does not prevent a Court from calling
upon the parties to file their respective written statements. Insofar as the
third defendant is concerned, the question of calling upon him to file his
written statement does not arise because he has already filed written
statement in September, 2023. The Court may call upon the defendants who
have not filed their written statement, to do so.
34. Before I bring down the curtain of this judgment, I have to point
out that in terms of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not barred from dealing with any interlocutory applications. This is because
the very reading of the Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it
clear that it commences with the following words “No Court shall proceed
with the trial of any suit”. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, can be
dealt with by the Court, even if the suit is stayed under Section 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, there is no bar on the learned I
Additional District Judge, Salem to deal with the interlocutory applications
in I.A.Nos.3 of 2023 & 4 of 2023, filed for interim-injunction and to vacate
the same or any other interlocutory application that may be presented during
the pendency of the stay.
35. In the light of the above discussion, apart from the observations as
regards to the filing of written statements and interlocutory applications, the
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
22.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The I Additional District Judge,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
rts
22.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
