Dismissed

Km. Sunita Rani Pal and Another v. Ganesh Prasad Pal Since Deceased and 3 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024SPLAD/547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special appeal against an order dismissing a plea for recall of grant of letter of administration, the Allahabad High Court held that a breach of a settlement does not constitute a ground for revocation. Relying on Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the court observed that appellants failed to appear despite notice due to the settlement, and their plea was thus unsustainable.

What the court decided

AI extract

Km. Sunita Rani Pal and Another vs Ganesh… — Succession and Inheritance | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:119576-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 547 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Km. Sunita Rani Pal And Another Respondent :- Ganesh Prasad Pal Since Deceased And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ratnesh Kumar Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Vinayam for Narendra Mohan

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶7

This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Testamentary Case No.25 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the appellants seeking recall of order dated 15.12.2015 has been dismissed.

¶8

The testamentary case was instituted by the respondents seeking grant of letter of administration with regard to the estate of late Raja Ram Pal, who expired on 28.9.2004. Notices were issued and despite service, the appellants did not put in appearance, whereafter by order dated 15.12.2015 the petition was allowed and order was passed for grant of letter of administration in favour of the petitioners therein.

¶9

The present application was filed by the appellants sisters seeking recall of the order dated 15.12.2015 primarily based on the fact that during pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into settlement under which the said testamentary proceedings were required to be withdrawn by the respondents, however, the same were not withdrawn and an order has been obtained and therefore the said order deserves to be recalled.

¶10

-2-

¶11

Learned Single Judge, after hearing the appellants, came to the conclusion that no case for recall of the order was made out as admittedly the applicants had notice of the proceedings and they chose not to contest the same.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions that as the settlement, which was arrived at between the parties, has not been honoured by the respondents, the order impugned dated 15.12.2015 was obtained fraudulently and, therefore, the same was required to be recalled by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned.

¶14

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶15

The facts are not in dispute wherein the appellants were duly served during the pendency of the testamentary proceedings and chose not to appear. The reason indicated is the settlement arrived at between the parties pertaining to the properties of late Raja Ram Pal. For whatever reason, the appearance was not made, the order dated 15.12.2015 was passed by this Court by treating that there has been no contest to the said proceedings. The grant of letter of administration can only be revoked in terms of the parameters laid down under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, wherein on the grounds indicated therein the order can be recalled. The plea sought to be raised in the present proceedings does not fall in any of the reasons enumerated under the said provision and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the

¶16

-3-

¶17

application filed by the appellants.

¶18

Insofar as the fact that the parties have entered into some settlement is concerned, in case such a settlement has been arrived at between the parties, it is always open for the appellants to seek its enforcement in accordance with law.

¶19

With the above observations, there is no substance in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 P.Sri./Manish Kr.

¶21

(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Km. Sunita Rani Pal and Another v. Ganesh Prasad Pal Since Deceased and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Km. Sunita Rani Pal and Another v. Ganesh Prasad Pal Since Deceased and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nayab Khan vs State of Up and 3 Others

Abhay Narayan Chaubey and Another vs Union of India and 5 Others

Anil Kumar Vaswani vs Shri Sandeep Batra and 3 Others

Committee of Management of Gramin Shiksha Vikas Samiti Bhabhokar Kaundhiara Prayagraj and 6 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others

Archana Sharma vs State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Institution Finance and 3 Others

Ganesh Pandey vs State of Up and 5 Others