Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 131 (MAD)

. v. .

2018-01-09

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. 1. The above Original Petition has been filed, under Sections 217, 253, 254 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for the grant of Letters of Administration without Will. 2. The matter was posted before this Court for maintainability. 3. This Court heard Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 4. In the petition, as it was originally filed, paragraph 13 was as follows:- “13. The Petitioners submit that the deceased is the sister of J.Jayakumar, who predeceased long ago. The mother of the deceased died in 1971. In the affidavit in Form 26 dated 25.4.2016, of the deceased had declared that she has no dependants vide column 4 of the affidavit. However, the daughter and son of J.Jayakumar are claiming as Class II legal heirs of the deceased in view of the relationship that their late father J.Jayakumar as the brother of the deceased. The Petitioners now learnt and submits that J.Deepa daughter of J.Jayakumar has converted to Christianity and married one Patrik Madhavan. Therefore, the Petitioners submit that she may not be considered as a Class II heir under Hindu Law. The Petitioners submit that this matter requires a consideration since the two did not come forward to claim the estate in a manner known to law. The Petitioner submits that huge voluminous estate, assets, shares, securities, etc. of the deceased are spread over the State of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere.” 5. When the papers were returned, the said paragraph 13 had been corrected and a few sentences had been deleted and a fresh sentence had been inserted and the revised paragraph 13 was as follows:- “'13. The Petitioners submit that the deceased is the sister of J.Jayakumar, who predeceased long ago. The mother of the deceased died in 1971. In the affidavit in Form 26 dated 25.4.2016 of the deceased had declared that she has no dependants vide column 4 of the affidavit. Therefore. The Petitioner have not cited any persons as Class II heirs under Hindu Law in this petition. The Petitioners submit that this matter requires a consideration since the two did not come forward to claim the estate in a manner known to law. The Petitioner submits that huge voluminous estate, assets, shares, securities, etc. of the deceased are spread over the State of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere.” 6. The Petitioners submit that this matter requires a consideration since the two did not come forward to claim the estate in a manner known to law. The Petitioner submits that huge voluminous estate, assets, shares, securities, etc. of the deceased are spread over the State of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere.” 6. On the face of it, it clearly establishes that the Petitioners have filed a petition, in which in the verification column, they have stated that “What is stated in paragraphs 1 to 25 are true to our knowledge and we believe the same to be true” and after making such verification, they have made a very material alteration with respect to Class II heirs and have retained the very same verification without any correction. Mala fide on the part of the Petitioners is apparent even on the face of record. Even other wise, the matter will have to be examined in a more detailed manner to examine whether the Registry can number the OP and take it on file. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on AIR 1920 Patna 197 (Babui Bhagwati Kuer Vs. Bahuria Ramsakthi Kuer and others). That was an appeal against the order of a District Judge, granting Letters of Administration to the estate of oneTrigunanand Upadhya to the Manager of the Court of Wards. In the said judgement, it was held that the order of the District Judge cannot be supported. Section 41 of the Probate and Administration Act was discussed and it was held that in the said provision, there was a discretion available to the Court. However, it does not mean that the Court can make an arbitrary selection from among the persons contending grant of Letters of Administration. At the time when the District Judge had granted Letters of Administration to the Manager of the Court of Wards, the Appellants were minors, but by the time the Division Bench in Patna decided the case, the minors had attained the age of majority and also on the ground and on facts, the Division Bench had held that the order of the District Judge was to be reversed. However, the facts in the present case are entirely different and hence, the above decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. 8. However, the facts in the present case are entirely different and hence, the above decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. 8. The present case relates to claim for grant of Letters of Administration to the property and credits of the deceased Dr.J.Jayalalitha, who is the former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu. She died on 5.12.2016. As stated above, the Petitioners originally claimed that there were claims, representing themselves as Class II legal heirs, but later, without assigning any reason as to the ground, on which they have suddenly disowned the said claim made in the petition, the Petitioners have struck off the said allegation. Both the Petitioners are said to be the residents of Chennai, particularly with Pin Code 600078. However, they have stated in extension about the career of Dr.J.Jayalalitha. They have also specifically stated that the properties, for which they seek Letters of Administration, are attached by the orders of the Court. In paragraph 14, they have stated that in the interest of justice, notice is taken to the persons, who claim themselves to be Class II heirs, namely, J.Deepa, D/o. J.Jayakumar and her brother. Subsequently, having struck off the particular portion, they have relied on the judgement rendered as against Dr.J.Jayalalitha in a criminal case and have mentioned about the material objects, which have been mentioned in the said judgment. They seek Letters of Administration under Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Administrators-General Act, 1963. They undertook to duly administer the property and credits and abide by the orders of this Court. 9. I have carefully considered submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 10. It is not clear whether the Petitioners are fortune hunters or persons deeply interested in administering the estate of Dr.J.Jayalalitha. The lackadaisical attitude adopted by the Petitioners by first mentioning about the son and daughter of the brother of Dr.J.Jayalalitha, by name, J.Jayakumar and then striking them off from the petition, shows that the Petitioners have not taken the legal proceedings as seriously as it should be. A material fact cannot be struck off without assigning any reason. In this case, it has been struck off merely to answer the objections raised by the Registry. As is mentioned above, by striking off so, the Class II heirs cannot vanish in thin air. A material fact cannot be struck off without assigning any reason. In this case, it has been struck off merely to answer the objections raised by the Registry. As is mentioned above, by striking off so, the Class II heirs cannot vanish in thin air. Either there are Class II heirs or there are no Class II heirs. It is for the Petitioners to give a definite statement on that aspect. On this one ground itself, this petition can be dismissed. But, however, I would like to probe little further into the provisions surrounding an Estate, for which there is no ostensible successor named or available. 11. Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act is as follows:- “Escheat:- 29. Failure of heirs. Failure of heirs. If an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the Government; and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.” 12. In (Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Vs. Collector), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:- “Section 29 embodies the principle of escheat. The doctrine of escheat postulates that where an individual dies intestate and does not leave behind an heir who is qualified to succeed to the property, the property devolves on government. Though the property devolves on government in such an eventuality, yet the government (2008) 12 SCC 541 takes it subject to all its obligations and liabilities. The state in other words does not take the property as a rival or preferential heir of the deceased but as the lord paramount of the whole soil of the country, as held in State of Punjab v. Balwant Singh (1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 108). This principle from Halsburys Laws of England (4th Edition Volume 17, paragraph1439) was adopted by this Court while explaining the ambit of Section 29. Section 29 comes into operation only on there being a failure of heirs. Failure means a total absence of any heir to the person dying intestate. When a question of escheat arises, the onus rests heavily on the person who asserts the absence of an heir qualified to succeed to the estate of the individual who has died intestate to establish the case. Failure means a total absence of any heir to the person dying intestate. When a question of escheat arises, the onus rests heavily on the person who asserts the absence of an heir qualified to succeed to the estate of the individual who has died intestate to establish the case. The law does not readily accept such a consequence.” 13. In State of Bihar v Radha Krishna Singh ( 1983 3 SCC 118 ), a Bench of three Judges of the Honourable Supreme Court formulated the principle in the following observations:- “272. It is well settled that when a claim of escheat is put forward by the Government the onus lies heavily on the appellant to prove the absence of any heir of the respondent anywhere in the world. Normally, the court frowns on the estate being taken by escheat unless the essential conditions for escheat are fully and completely satisfied. Further, before the plea of escheat can be entertained, there must be a public notice given by the Government so that if there is any claimant anywhere in the country or for that matter in the world, he may come forward to contest the claim of the State. In the instant case, the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh merely satisfied themselves by appearing to oppose the claims of the plaintiffs-respondents. Even if they succeed in showing that the plaintiffs were not the nearest reversioners of the late Maharaja, it does not follow as a logical corollary that the failure of the plaintiffs' claim would lead to the irresistible inference that there is no other heir who could at any time come forward to claim the properties.” 14. In Mulla's Hindu Law (22nd Edition at 1260-1261), it was succinctly summarised the position as follows:- “'Where the Crown or Government claims by escheat, the onus (1992) Suppl (3) SCC 108, 4th Ed. Vol 17, para 1439 7 (1983) 3 SCC 118 , Twenty second edition, pp. 1260-1261 lies on it to show that the owner of the estate died without heirs. An estate taken by escheat is subject to the trusts, charges and legal obligations (if any) previously affecting the estate, e.g., mortgages and other encumbrances. This section rules that in case of failure of all the heirs recognised under the Act, on the death of the owner intestate, his or her property devolves on the Government. An estate taken by escheat is subject to the trusts, charges and legal obligations (if any) previously affecting the estate, e.g., mortgages and other encumbrances. This section rules that in case of failure of all the heirs recognised under the Act, on the death of the owner intestate, his or her property devolves on the Government. The Government takes the property subject to all legal obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject if the property had devolved upon the heir by succession. The word failure used in the section is very clear and indicative of the fact that there must be a absence of heirs of the intestate.” 15. In Rambir Das v. Kalyan Das ( 1997 4 SCC 102 ), a Bench of two learned Judges of the Honourable Supreme Courtdealt with a case of Shebaitship. The Court took note of the position of law elucidated in the lectures. It was held as under:- “As there is always an ultimate reversion to the founder or his heirs, in case the line of Shebaits is extinct, strictly speaking no question of escheat arises so far as the devolution of Shebaitship is concerned. But cases may be imagined where the founder also has left no heirs, and in such cases the founder's properties may escheat to the State together with the endowed property. In circumstances like these, the rights of the State would possibly be the same as those of the founder himself, and it would be for it to appoint a Shebait for the debutter property. It cannot be said that the State receiving a dedicated property by escheat can put an end to the trust and treat it as secular property. In other words, even in a situation where a founder or his line of heirs is extinct, and the properties escheat to the state, the state which receives a dedicated property is subject to the trust and cannot treat it in the manner of a secular property. In fact, we may note, Section 29 expressly stipulates that the state shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.” 16. In the present case, the Petitioners have not clearly stated about Class II heirs of Dr.J.Jayalalitha. They have usurped to themselves the rights to seek Letters of Administration. In fact, we may note, Section 29 expressly stipulates that the state shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.” 16. In the present case, the Petitioners have not clearly stated about Class II heirs of Dr.J.Jayalalitha. They have usurped to themselves the rights to seek Letters of Administration. If it is the clear case that Dr.J.Jayalalitha had no legal heirs at all, then it is for the State to step in and it is not for two individuals to seek Letters of Administration. The entire petition itself is misguided and the only silver lining is that just two persons have come forward to seek Letters of Administration. 17. At this stage, the provisions of the Administrators-General Act has also got to be examined. The said Act provides for appointment of persons who are vested with the powers of an Administrator General. Section 2(a) defines the expression 'assets' thus: (a) "assets" means all the property, movable and immovable, of a deceased person, which is chargeable with and applicable to the payment of his debts and legacies, or available for distribution among his heirs and next of-kin.” 18. The Administrator General is notified under Section 3. Section 7 allows for the grant of letters of administration by the High Court to the Administrator General of the state, unless they are granted to the next of kin of the deceased. Section 7 reads as follows :- 7. Administrator-General entitled to letters of administration, unless granted to next-of kin :- Any letters of administration granted by the High Court shall be granted to the Administrator-General of the State unless they are granted to the next-of-kin of the deceased. 19. Section 9 empowers the Administrator General to apply to the High Court for the administration of estates in specified circumstances and it is as follows:- 9. 19. Section 9 empowers the Administrator General to apply to the High Court for the administration of estates in specified circumstances and it is as follows:- 9. Right of Administrator-General to apply for administration of estates :- (1) If- (a) any person has died leaving within any State assets exceeding rupees ten lakhs in value, and (b) (whether the obtaining of probate of his will or letters of administration to his estate is or is not obligatory), no person to whom any court would have jurisdiction to commit administration of such assets has, within one month after his death, applied in such State for such probate, or letters of administration, and (c) (in cases where the obtaining of such probate or letters of administration is not obligatory under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925) , no person has taken other proceedings for the protection of the estate, the Administrator-General of the State in which such assets are, may, subject to any rules made by the State Government, within a reasonable time after he has had notice of the death of such person, and of his having left such assets, take such proceedings as may be necessary to obtain from the High Court letters of administration of the estate of such person. (2) The Administrator-General shall not take proceedings under this section unless he is satisfied, that there is apprehension of misappropriation, deterioration or waste of such assets if such proceedings are not taken by him or that such proceedings are otherwise necessary for the protection of the assets. “ The Administrator General is statutorily empowered to move the High Court to protect the assets or estate of a deceased from dissipation. 20. Section 10 empowers the Administrator General to move the High Court to collect and take possession of the assets of a deceased person where there is imminent danger of misappropriation, deterioration or waste of assets and it is as follows:- 10. 20. Section 10 empowers the Administrator General to move the High Court to collect and take possession of the assets of a deceased person where there is imminent danger of misappropriation, deterioration or waste of assets and it is as follows:- 10. Power of Administrator-General to collect and hold assets where immediate action is required :- (1) Whenever any person has died leaving assets within any State exceeding rupees ten lakhs in value, and the High Court for that State is satisfied that there is imminent danger of misappropriation, deterioration or waste of such assets, requiring immediate action, the High Court may, upon the application of the Administrator-General or of any person interested in such assets or in the due administration thereof, forthwith direct the Administrator-General - (a) to collect and take possession of such assets, and (b) to hold, deposit, realise, sell or invest the same according to the directions of the High Court, and, in default of any such directions, according to the provisions of this Act so far as the same are applicable to such assets. (2) Any order of the High Court under sub-section (1) shall entitle the Administrator General (a) to maintain any suit or proceeding for the recovery of such assets; (b) if he thinks fit, to apply for letters of administration of the estate of such deceased person; (c) to retain out of the assets of the estate any fees chargeable under rules made under this Act; and (d) to reimburse himself for all payments made by him to respect of such assets which a private administrator might lawfully have made.” 21. Under Section 11, the High Court is empowered to grant probate or letters of administration to any other person who appears and establishes his claim and it is as follows:- 11. Under Section 11, the High Court is empowered to grant probate or letters of administration to any other person who appears and establishes his claim and it is as follows:- 11. Grant of probate or letters of administration to person appearing in the course of proceedings taken by Administrator-General :- If, in the course of proceedings to obtain letters of administration under the provisions of Section 9 or Section 10, (a) any person appears and establishes his claim (i) to probate of the will of the deceased; or (ii) to letters of administration as next-of-kin of the deceased, and gives such security as may be required of him by law; or (b) any person satisfies the High Court that he has taken and is prosecuting with due diligence other proceedings for the protection of the estate, the case being one in which the obtaining of such probate or letters of administration is not obligatory under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925); or (c) the High Court is satisfied that there is no apprehension of misappropriation, deterioration, or waste of the assets and that the grant of letters of administration in such proceedings is not otherwise necessary for the protection of the assets; the High Court shall (1) in the case mentioned in clause (a), grant probate of the will or letters of administration accordingly; (2) in the case mentioned in clause (b) or clause (c), drop the proceedings; and (3) in all the cases award to the Administrator-General the costs of any proceedings taken by him under those sections to be paid out of the estate as part of the testamentary or intestate expenses thereof.” 22. Section 12 postulates those eventualities in which administration can be granted to the Administrator General and it is as follows:- 12. Section 12 postulates those eventualities in which administration can be granted to the Administrator General and it is as follows:- 12. Grant of administration to Administrator-General in certain cases :- If, in the course of proceedings to obtain letters of administration under the provisions of Section 9 or Section 10, and within such period as to the High Court seems reasonable, no person appears and establishes his claim to probate of a will, or to a grant of letters of administration as next-of kin of the deceased, or satisfies the High Court that he has taken and is prosecuting with due diligence other proceedings for the protection of the estate, the case being one in which the obtaining of such probate or letters of administration is not obligatory under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), and the High Court is satisfied that there is apprehension of misappropriation, deterioration, or waste of the assets or that the grant of letters of administration in such proceedings is otherwise necessary for the protection of the assets; or if a person who has established his claim to a grant of letters of administration as next-of-kin of the deceased fails to give such security as may be required of him by law; the High Court may grant letters of administration to the Administrator-General.” 23. Under Section 14, the grant of letters of administration to the Administrator General can be revoked where an executor or next of kin of a deceased establishes a claim to probate or letters of administration in preference to the Administrator General and it is as follows:- 14. Under Section 14, the grant of letters of administration to the Administrator General can be revoked where an executor or next of kin of a deceased establishes a claim to probate or letters of administration in preference to the Administrator General and it is as follows:- 14. Recall of Administrator-General's administration and grant of probate etc., to executor or next-of-kin :- If an executor or next-of-kin of the deceased, who has not been personally served with a citation or who has not had notice thereof in time to appear pursuant thereto, establishes to the satisfaction of the High Court a claim to probate of will or to letters of administration in preference to the Administrator-General, any letters of administration granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act to the Administrator-General : (a) shall be revoked, if a will of the deceased is proved in the State; (b) may be revoked, in other cases, if an application for that purpose is made within six months after the grant to the Administrator-General and the High Court is satisfied that there has been no unreasonable delay in making the application, or in transmitting the authority under which the application is made; and probate or letters of administration may be granted to such executor or next-of-kin as the case may be.” 24. The effect of the grant of probate or letters of administration is provided by Section 20(1) which reads thus : 20. Effect of probate or letters granted to Administrator-General:- (1) Probate or letters of administration granted by the High Court to the Administrator-General of any State shall have effect over all the assets of the deceased throughout India and shall be conclusive as to the representative title against all debtors of the deceased and all persons holding such assets, and shall afford full indemnity to all debtors paying their debts and all persons delivering up such assets to such Administrator-General.” 25. The above provisions had also been interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Courtin the judgementwhich was cited earlier, in (Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Vs. Collector), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had held as follows:- “The above provisions enacted by Parliament define the ambit of the powers vested in the Administrator General and the circumstances in which he can move the High Court. Collector), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had held as follows:- “The above provisions enacted by Parliament define the ambit of the powers vested in the Administrator General and the circumstances in which he can move the High Court. Essentially, the Administrator General steps in to protect the estate of a person who has died and no person to whom any court would have jurisdiction to commit the administration of the estate has come forth. The Administrator General is authorised by law to move the High Court to obtain letters of administration. Where the property or estate of the deceased is in imminent danger, the Administrator General can be empowered by the High Court to take immediate steps to safeguard the estate. While permitting the Administrator General to apply to the High Court for the grant of letters of administration, the law allows any other individual to appear and establish a claim before the High Court. Where a claim to probate or letters of administration in preference to the Administrator General is established, an order of revocation can be passed by the High Court. Such adjudicatory functions are entrusted to the High Court. The Administrator General, as a public official, is conferred with duties and obligations to secure and safeguard the administration of the estate left behind by a deceased individual in the circumstances adverted to in the statute. The legislation has not reserved a judicial power to the Administrator General. Parliament in its wisdom has made provisions to ensure that estates are not frittered away upon the death of persons who do not leave behind legal heirs, by allowing the Administrator General to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court to safeguard such estates. The conferment of adjudicatory functions upon the High Court safeguards against an abuse of power and facilitates an adjudication of private claims.” 26. In the present case, as repeatedly pointed out, the Petitioners have no locus standi at all to claim Letters of Administration. The petition fails on the pleadings of the Petitioners themselves, which lack bona fide. The Court has inherent duty to safeguard every property. For the reasons stated above, I am not able to convince myself that the petition is maintainable. 27. In the result, OPD.No.35654 of 2017 is rejected as not maintainable before this Court. No costs.