Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 730 (BOM)

Manmit Kaur Gandhi v. Budh Singh Anand

2008-06-04

P.B.MAJMUDAR, R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR

body2008
JUDGMENT P.B. Majmudar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge dated 13th June, 2002 in Misc. Petition No. 75 of 1999. The said petition was preferred by the present appellants for revocation of letters of administration of the last will of late Sardar Harbhajan Singh granted to one Mrs. Veeranwali Budhsingh Anand dated 6th November, 1989. The appellants herein preferred the said application on the ground that they are the daughters of deceased Sardar Harbhajan Singh and under the will of their father, they have not received any benefit. It is their case that the said will is made under suspicious circumstances and that the letter of administration obtained by their grandmother is void, illegal and deserves to be set aside. 2. The said application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds. The respondents took out a Notice of Motion being Notice of Motion NO. 1383 of 2000 on the ground that the appellants herein have no right to move the Court and as such the application was not maintainable. So far as the factual aspect of the matter is concerned, one Veeranwali Budhsingh Anand filed Probate Petition No. 298 of 1990. In the said probate petition, a caveat was filed by the maternal grandfather of the appellants. The learned single Judge dismissed the said caveat by a speaking order on 22nd November, 1995. On the basis of the affidavit on record, it was found by the Court at the time of decision of the caveat that both the appellants herein are the adopted children of one Taranjit Singh Sahani and they have been adopted by him in view of the re-marriage of the mother of the present appellants. The father of the present appellants divorced the mother of the appellants and the mother of the present appellants thereafter went to England and re-married there. In view of the affidavit filed by the maternal grandfather of the appellants, caveat was dismissed and the proceedings taken out by the said Veeranwali were processed further and ultimately the letters of administration was granted in her favour. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellants did not move the Court by filing any application for revocation of letters of administration granted to the original applicant. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellants did not move the Court by filing any application for revocation of letters of administration granted to the original applicant. After considerable time, in the year 1999, the present appellants moved the petition before the learned single Judge for revocation of letters of administration on the ground that they are the daughters of late Sardar Harbhajan Singh and, therefore, their rights cannot be denied in their father's estate. In order to substantiate their say, they relied on the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The reference was made to the said provisions on the ground that their deceased father Sardar Harbhajan Singh did not consent to the children having been given in adoption and, therefore, deceased Sardar Harbhajan Singh continued to be their natural father and their rights cannot be denied on the basis of the socalled adoption. It is their case that in view of the fact that they are entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased father and since there is no valid adoption, the appellants cannot be disqualified from inheriting their father's estate. A reference is also made to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The said application was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the appellants having been adopted by Taranjit Singh Sahani, who married the mother of the appellants, after the dissolution of her first marriage, the appellants have no right to succeed to the estate of their natural father and, therefore, they have no right to lodge any claim or challenge the will of deceased Sardar Harbhajan Singh. It was also contended that the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act does not have extra territorial jurisdiction and that the application submitted by the appellants for revocation of letters of administration deserves to be dismissed. 4. The learned single Judge, after considering the evidence on record and after considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellants have no right to the property of the deceased, natural father. It was held that, therefore, the petition was not maintainable and accordingly the same was dismissed. The aforesaid order is impugned at the instance of the original petitioners by way of this appeal. 5. It was held that, therefore, the petition was not maintainable and accordingly the same was dismissed. The aforesaid order is impugned at the instance of the original petitioners by way of this appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though the caveat filed by the maternal grand father of the appellants was dismissed, yet the appellants should have been given a chance to prove their case on merits as the maternal grandfather had not taken care of the interest of the appellants. It is further submitted that even if it is held that adoption proceedings had taken place in England by which the second husband of their mother adopted the appellants, ipso facto is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the appellants have no right to the estate of their natural father especially when such type of adoption cannot be valid adoption so far as Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is concerned. It is also submitted that the appellants should have been given chance to prove their case that the will in question was executed in suspicious circumstances. It is submitted that the appellants are required to be given a chance to lead evidence on the merits of the issue in connection with the revocation application. 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that the learned single has rightly rejected the petition and the appellants have no right, title or interest in the property of the deceased Harbhajan Singh. He submitted that the order of the learned single Judge requires no interference in this appeal. 7. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this appeal, certain factual aspects are required to be taken into consideration. The same are as under. 7.1 The mother of the appellants married with Harbhajan Singh and the present appellants are the daughters of the said Harbhajan Singh. 7.2 In 1971, Baljit Kaur and the deceased divorced each other. 7.3 In 1972, Baljit Kaur, natural mother of the appellants, remarried with one Taranjit Singh Sahani. 7.4 The caveat was filed by the maternal grandfather of the appellants resisting the application for grant of letters of administration. The caveat was dismissed on 22nd November, 1995, on the ground that the appellants are not next of kin of the deceased in view of the adoption. 7.4 The caveat was filed by the maternal grandfather of the appellants resisting the application for grant of letters of administration. The caveat was dismissed on 22nd November, 1995, on the ground that the appellants are not next of kin of the deceased in view of the adoption. 7.5 The said adoption was not challenged for a considerable time i.e. till 6th October, 1999 and in the year 1999 petition was filed for revocation of the grant in favour of said Veeranmwali and for revocation of the grant. 8. Considering the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, in our view, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants have been adopted in England and the present proceedings have been taken out for revocation only is nothing but an afterthought. All throughout the appellants remained in United Kingdom and accepted the factum about the adoption. It cannot be said that the appellants were not aware about their legal rights that they were required to file revocation application as per law. The age mentioned in the Misc. Petition of appellant No.1 was 58 though no age of appellant No.2 is mentioned there. It is also required to be noted that no point is taken before the learned single Judge that the order was passed without hearing the appellants and no material was produced on record to show that the maternal grandfather had taken care of their interest. On the contrary, they accepted the order all throughout and ultimately at a subsequent stage and after considerable period filed the application for revocation. It is required to be noted that the maternal grandfather of the present appellants i.e. Beant Singh had, in the affidavit filed on 13th December, 1994, confirmed the fact that both the appellants herein are the adopted children of one Taranjit Singh Sahani and have been adopted by him on their mother i.e. the wife of testator Harbhajan Singh remarrying him subsequent to the divorce given by deceased Harbhajan Singh to the mother of the appellants. The learned single Judge has rightly found that even though the order granting letters of administration in favour of Veeranwali Budhsingh Anand was passed as back as in the year 1995, the appellants did not care to move the Court till 6th October, 1999. The learned single Judge has rightly found that even though the order granting letters of administration in favour of Veeranwali Budhsingh Anand was passed as back as in the year 1995, the appellants did not care to move the Court till 6th October, 1999. The learned single Judge has also rightly found that if the contention of the appellants is to be accepted to the effect that they have the right to inherit the property of the natural father, it would result into a precarious situation inasmuch as the appellants have claimed a right as adopted children in respect of their adopted father's property in United Kingdom and at the same time contended that their adoption being inconsistent and not as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, they are entitled to succeed to their natural father's property in India. The appellants cannot have dual status as per the laws of United Kingdom and also as per Indian Law. It has been found by the learned Judge that the status of the appellants herein as adopted children is determined by the adoption orders passed by the authorities in United Kingdom as per law prevailing in U.K. Which is accepted by the appellants and they have been considered as adopted children of Taranjit Singh. In our view, it has been rightly found by the learned single Judge that the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, does not have extra territorial jurisdiction and that the appellants cannot seek retention of their adoption by their adoptive father in U.K. And at the same time try to get benefit as heirs of deceased natural father so as to claim right in his property in England. 9. Apart from the aforesaid fact of law, even on factual aspect, according to us, the appellants have no case. That the caveat filed by the maternal grand father in 1995 was dismissed and thereafter the appellants have never tried to bother to move the Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, however, submitted that as and when the appellants came to India they moved such an application. In our view, this contention hardly inspires confidence in our mind. That the caveat filed by the maternal grand father in 1995 was dismissed and thereafter the appellants have never tried to bother to move the Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, however, submitted that as and when the appellants came to India they moved such an application. In our view, this contention hardly inspires confidence in our mind. So far as question of delay in moving the application is concerned, it is a matter of fact that the appellants have accepted the order in 1995 and have subsequently tried to take chance by filing revocation application after considerable time. 10. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in our view, the learned single Judge was completely justified in rejecting the revocation application and after considering the fact that the appellants were adopted by their adoptive father in U.K. Ultimately, they tried to get some right in the property of their natural father. In our view, therefore, the learned single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the appellants are not entitled to claim for any relief and thus rightly dismissed the revocation application, as the appellants have no right to the property of the deceased natural father. We accordingly agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, no orders are required to be passed in the Notice of Motion and the same is disposed of accordingly. 11. In view of the reasoning given by us hereinabove, the request for continuing interim relief is rejected.