Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Indisputably, the entire amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- was not paid. Appellants cancelled the said agreement by service of a legal notice dated 26.11.1998.

5. Respondent No. 1 herein was the Executor of the said Will. He took out a Chamber Summons purported to be in terms of Section 302 of the Act praying inter alia for the following reliefs:

"(a) That the Plaintiff be directed to deposit in this Hon'ble Court the sum of Rs. 13,78,422/-

(c) ad-interim order in terms of prayer clauses

(a) and (b) above."

6. The said Chamber Summons was dismissed by an order dated 11.08.2005. An intra-court appeal was preferred thereagainst, which was marked as Appeal No. 897 of 2005. By a judgment and order dated 22.11.2005, the Division Bench held:

"10. It was not disputed before us that probate to the Will of the deceased Kanha Barik Mhatre has been granted by this Court in Testamentary and intestate jurisdiction on 9th July, 1998. In the probate granted by this Court on 9th July, 1998, the present Appellant has been appointed as a sole Executor as to the Will executed by Kanha Barik Mhatre, Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 empowers the Testamentary Court to give to the Executor any general or special directions with regard to the estate of the deceased Testator. The Probate having already been granted, the issue whether the sole Executor could be discharged of his obligation on deposit of the amount as set out in the Chamber Summons was surely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Testamentary Court. The question is not whether in the facts and circumstances set out in the affidavit in support of Chamber Summons, the Appellant at all could have been discharged as sole executor that would be seen by the learned Chamber Judge at the time of hearing of Chamber Summons. However, that was not seen and the learned Chamber Judge dismissed the Chamber Summons on the ground that the Chamber Summons was beyond the jurisdiction of the Testamentary Court. The approach of the learned Chamber Judge cannot be countenanced. It was for the learned Chamber Judge to decide whether the sole Executor of the Will of the deceased Kanha Barik Mhatre could at all be discharged of his obligations as the Executor of the Will as this could only be decided in the Testamentary jurisdiction."

7. On the said premise, the appeal was allowed. The order dated 11.08.2005 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Court of learned Chamber Judge for hearing of the Chamber Summons afresh.

8. By an order dated 23.06.2006, the learned Single Judge allowed the respondents to withdraw the said Chamber Summons.

9. However, a fresh Chamber Summons bearing No. 54 of 2006 was taken out on 13.07.2006. In the said notice of motion, the Constituted Attorney of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, in an affidavit affirmed on 28.08.2006, stated as under:

The said Chamber Summons was allowed issuing various directions, which are as under:

"(i) The Petitioner to deposit the amount mentioned in prayer clause (a) of the chamber summons with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court within a period of two weeks from today with due notice to the respondents.

(ii) In case the respondents apply before the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court for withdrawal of the amount within a period of six months from the date of deposit, the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court shall permit them to withdraw the amount.