Disposed

B.M. Sreenivasiah Smt.Lakshmidevamma Charities Trust v. Ragini Narayan

Bombay HC15 Oct 2007APP/26/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order revoking a Letter of Administration. The court upheld the lower court's finding of marriage as undisputed. It declined to decide the Trust's standing but remitted the matter to the Single Judge to seek permission to prosecute the revocation petition with the Respondent joined.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of; the Trust is directed to apply to the Single Judge for permission to prosecute the testamentary petition within four weeks.

B.M. Sreenivasiah Smt.Lakshmidevamma Charities… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL NO. 26 OF2002
 IN
 PETITION NO. 47 OF 1998

¶5

IN

¶6

 PETITION NO. 603 OF 1996

¶7

 Shri B.M. Sreenivasiah,

¶8

 Smt. Lakshmidevamma Charities Trust ... Appellant

¶9

 (Org.Respondent)

¶10

 Versus

¶11

 Ragini Narayan ...Respondent
 (Org.petitioner in

¶12

 Misc.Petn.No.47/98)

¶13

 Mr. B.G.Bagwe with A.S.Karwande & Co.for Appellant.

¶14

 Mr. B.B.Saraf with S.P. Dalal i/b. Dalal & Co. for

¶15

 Respondent.

¶16

CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &

¶17

 J.H.BHATIA,JJ.

¶18

 DATE: 15th October,2007.

¶19

P.C.

¶20

¶21

 1. By this Appeal, an order made by the learned
 Single Judge of this Court revoking the grant of Letter
 of Administration with the Will attached has been
 challenged. The Will was left behind by B.S.Narayan,
 who died on 23rd August, 1995.

¶22

 2. The relevant admitted facts are :-

¶23

 (i) B.S.Narayan, who was the son of one Mr.
 B.M.Srinivasaiah, who died on 15.9.1953. He had two

¶24

 wives. One was Lakshamamma (now deceased). B.S.Narayan
 was the son from the first wife, Lakshamamma.
 B.M.Srinivasaiah, the father of B.S.Narayan had a second

¶25

 wife. Her name was Lakshamidevamma.

¶26

 (ii) On the death of B.S.Narayan, Lakshamidevamma
 applied for Letter of Administration with the Will of
 B.S.Narayan attached. The Letter of Administration was
 granted on 27.4.1998.

¶27

 (iii) One Ragini, who is the respondent No.1, claiming
 to be the legally wedded wife of B.S.Narayan, the
 deceased, filed an application for revocation of the
 grant of Letter of Administration with the Will of
 B.S.Narayan attached.

¶28

¶29

 (iv) During the pendency of the revocation petition,
 the original petitioner Lakshmidevamma expired. Because
 of an order made by the Division Bench of this Court
 dated 10.1.2000 in Appeal No.1259 of 1999, the present
 appellant, Shri B.M.Srinivasaiah, Smt. Lakshmidevamma
 Charities Trust, which claims to be the beneficiary of
 the Will left behind by B.S.Narayan, was permitted to
 contest the revocation petition.

¶30

 (v) The revocation petition filed by Ragini was
 heard and disposed of by the order passed by the learned
 Single Judge of this Court dated 27.9.2001 which is
 challenged in this Appeal.

¶31

 (vi) Admitted position is that the Letter of
 Administration with the Will of B.S.Narayan attached has
 been revoked on the ground that though Ragini was his
 legally wedded wife, she was not cited in the petition
 filed for the Letters of Administration.

¶32

 3. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides.

¶33

 4. So far as the question whether Ragini who is the
 legally wedded wife of deceased B.S.Narayan or not is
 concerned, there is a finding of fact recorded by the
 learned Single Judge that she was legally married to the
 deceased. The learned Counsel appearing for the

¶34

¶35

 appellant is not able to point out to us any error in
 that finding. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere
 with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of
 this Court revoking grant of Letter of Administration
 with the Will of B.S.Narayan attached.

¶36

 5. Now, as a consequence of revocation of the
 Letter of Administration, the original petition filed
 for Letters of Administration, being Petition No.603 of
 1996, will revive. However, it is also common ground
 that Lakshmidevamma, who had filed that petition, is no
 more. The appellant-Trust claims to be the beneficiary
 of the Will left behind by B.S.Narayan and in that
 capacity the Trust claims that it is entitled to
 prosecute that petition. This position is disputed by
 Ragini. In our opinion, however, the question whether
 the Appellant-Trust is entitled to prosecute the
 petition filed by Lakshmidevamma for the Letters of
 Administration of the Will of B.S.Narayan cannot be
 decided in this Appeal. In our opinion, the following
 order would meet the ends of justice :-

¶37

 (i) In case the Appellant-Trust, within a period of
 four weeks from today, take out an application seeking
 permission of the Court to prosecute Petition No.603 of
 1996, they shall join Ragini as respondent and serve
 copy of that application on the Advocate appearing for

¶38

¶39

 Ragini in this Appeal. Thereafter, that application
 shall be decided in accordance with law by the learned
 Single Judge taking Testamentary Petitions.

¶40

 (ii) In case, it is held that the Appellant-Trust is
 entitled to prosecute that petition, the learned Counsel
 appearing for the appellant has stated before us that
 Ragini will be cited as an heir in that petition and
 thereafter Citation shall be served on the Advocate
 appearing for Ragini in this Appeal and thereafter the
 petition shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶41

 Appeal is disposed of.

¶42

 Copy of this Order duly authenticated by the
 Associate/Private Secretary be supplied to the
 parties.

¶43

---

¶44

(D.K. DESHMUKH,J.)

¶45

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)

B.M. Sreenivasiah Smt.Lakshmidevamma Charities Trust v. Ragini Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.M. Sreenivasiah Smt.Lakshmidevamma Charities Trust v. Ragini Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Ajdev Investments and Financial Service P.Ltd. Vs Jamnadas Sakalachand and Ors.

MOOlcHAND K Ranka and Ors. Vs Manohar Vithal Telang

Rajesh Mirkar and Ors. Vs Lallubhai Amichand Ltd. and Anr.

Hemlata @ Kanakalata S. Shroff Vs Prafulkumar C. Mohandas and Ors.

Correa Investments Vs William and Williams and Ors.

Mrs. Sushilabai N. Rungta Vs Radheshyam Mangalchand Kedia and 11 Ors.