Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The respondent filed two petitions seeking ancillary probate in C.P.Nos.1/2016 and 2/2016 by contending that Dorothy Mavis Shedden has executed a Will in Victoria, Australia appointing her grandson Adrian Maxwell as Executor vide Will dated 11.12.1998. The respondent also claims that George Reginald has also executed a Will appointing Arthur R.W.Towt as the Executor vide Will dated 24.03.2010.

6. The respondent filed two probate civil petitions under Section 228 by contending that the Executor moved a petition before Supreme Court of Victoria and the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia has granted probate of Will of Dorothy Mavis on 07.10.2014. The respondent also claims that Arthur R.W.Towt who has been appointed as Executor of Will of George Reginald also applied for probate of Will from Anne Court, Australia. Based on probate issued by the Australian Court, the present respondent on the strength of GPA executed by Mr. Adrian Shedden, has filed two petitions in C.P.Nos.1/2016 and 2/2016 seeking ancillary probate in respect of Will executed by Dorothy Shedden and George Reginald.

14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that if letters of administration is not issued, the Executor's right will be seriously prejudiced and they will not be able to contest the Regular First Appeals arising out of O.S.No.26280/2014 which is pending consideration before the Division Bench of this Court. She has also strongly resisted the petition for revocation on the ground that revocation is not sought within three years from the date of grant of letters of administration. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by Bombay High Court in the case of Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe1. Referring to the judgment rendered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Abhiram Dass vs. Gopal Dass2, she would vehemently argue and contend that a person disputing the right of the testator cannot be regarded as having interest in the estate of the deceased. She would contend that such assertion would amount to assertion of adverse interest. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the Bombay High Court in Pirojshah Bikhaji and Others vs. Pestonji Meswanji3. Placing reliance on the said judgment, she would contend that a person who wishes to come in as a caveator must show some interest in that estate. Referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon vs. Hardyal Singh 2007 SC Online Bom 1506 (DB) (1890) ILR 17 Cal 48 (DB) (1910) 12 Bom LR 366 Dhillon and Others4, she would contend that probate Court is not competent to determine the question of title to the suit properties. Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Birla vs. Rajendra Singh Lodha5. Referring to the principles laid down in the said judgment, she would vehemently argue and contend that a person questioning the grant of probate and seeking revocation must establish that he has an interest which would have the effect of destroying the estate of the testator itself. She would further point out that any person claiming interest adverse to the testator cannot maintain an application before the probate Court and his remedy is elsewhere.

"18. In view of the aforesaid legal position and there being no objection from any quarter, this Court considers it fit and proper to grant the Letter of Administration to the present petitioner Mr Parameshwaran Subramani in respect of the property of Mrs Dorothy Mavis Shedden, the deceased in favour of her grandson and Executor of her Will dated 11.12.1998 in favour of Mr Adrian Maxwell Kenneth Shedden (Jr.) in respect of half of the property in question situate at New No.6, (Old No.12), Elysium, Moyenville Road, Langford Town, Bangalore 25. The petitioner will furnish the inventory and the accounts in respect of the said administration in terms of S.291 of the Act quoted above and shall also furnish the bond to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court in view of Rule 17 of the 'Rules Governing Probate & Administration Matters, 1964' (Notification No.SPL 327/63 dated 13.7.1964) which were notified in exercise of powers conferred by S.129 of the CPC, 1908 by Karnataka High Court. The said Rule is quoted below for ready reference:

19. The petitioner shall also preserve and maintain the said property for the benefit of the Executor of the Will, Mr Adrian Maxwell Kenneth Shedden (Jr.) and the Executor of the Will shall be entitled to the said property and any accretion thereto and the proceeds in case he decides to dispose of the said property through the petitioner who would administer the said Will of the deceased in India and he shall also be liable to account the proceeds of the income and sale proceeds of the property situate in the State of Karnataka as directed by the Executor of the Will of deceased Mrs Doroty Mavis Shedden."