Allowed

Dinesh Vallabhdas Kapadia. v. 1.Ramesh v.Kapadia and 4 Ors. through their C.A. Ramesh v.Kapadia.

Bombay HC15 Mar 2016NMA/389/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that Section 269(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 bars exercising Section 269(1) powers in Hindu testamentary suits. It quashed the Single Judge's order, granted a temporary stay via the Rule 403 notice of motion, and directed the Court Receiver to refund deposits while requiring possession retention for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion made absolute; Court Receiver ordered to refund deposits; Respondent No.5 directed not to part with flat possession for six weeks.

Dinesh Vallabhdas Kapadia. Vs 1.Ramesh v.Kapadia and 4… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2016)

ash

nml-706.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.706 OF 2016 IN APPEAL (L) NO.100 OF 2016 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.107 OF 2015 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.577 OF 2008

¶5

Dinesh Vallabhdas Kapadia.	..	Applicant/Appellant/ (Orig. Plaintiff)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Diniesh Vallabhdas Kapadia. Vs	..	Appellant
Ramesh Vallabhdas Kapadia & Ors.	..	Respondents

¶6

Shri Swapan Samdhani for the Applicant/Appellant. Shri A.R. Shaikh i/b Mrs. Swati S. Margi for the Respondents. Shri S.S. Deshpande, Court Receiver, is present.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATED : 15TH MARCH 2016

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant (Appellant) and the learned counsel appearing for the first to third Respondents (Respondents in the Appeal). Prima facie, it appears to us that the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has purportedly exercised the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 269

¶10

ash 2

¶11

nml-706.16

¶12

of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ( for short “the said Act of 1925”). Admittedly, the parties are Hindus.

¶13

Our attention is invited to the judgment and order dated 29^th March 2011 in Appeal No.797 of 2010 (Ramchandra Ganpatrao Hande alias Handege v. Vithalrao Hande and Others) . The view taken by this Court is that in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 269 of the said Act of 1925, when the parties to the Probate Petition are Hindus, the power under Sub-section (1) of Section 269 cannot be exercised by the Testamentary Court.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents states that though the Appeal is pending against the said judgment and order dated 29^th March 2011 before the Apex Court, as of today, the said decision continues to bind this Court. However, he relied upon the Rule 403 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. He submitted that once a Testamentary Petition is treated as a suit, the Application under Rule 1 of Order XL as well as Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable.

¶15

Perhaps, the Rule 403 of the said Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 is founded on Section 254 of the said Act of 1925 which provides that in a Petition for grant of Probate or Letters of

ash

nml-706.16

Administration when there is a contest, the Petition shall be treated as a suit. Nevertheless, it continues to be a proceeding for grant of probate and, therefore, the powers to protect the property under Sub-section (1) of Section 269 of the said Act of 1925 cannot be invoked. In the present case, the parties being Hindus, Sub-section (2) of Section 269 of the said Act of 1925 comes into picture. Therefore, this Court cannot exercise the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 269 of the said Act of 1925.

¶20

Therefore, prima facie, the order passed by the learned Single Judge appears to be erroneous. Therefore, a case is made out for grant of stay. We make it clear that notwithstanding the grant of stay, it will be always open for the first to third Respondents to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for seeking the reliefs which were sought in the Notice of Motion No.107 of 2015.

¶21

It is an admitted position that the Court Receiver has not taken charge of the flat subject matter of this Appeal.

¶22

Hence, we dispose of the Notice of Motion by passing the following order.

ash

nml-706.16

ORDER :

(a) Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a);

¶28

(b) On the Application being made by the first to third Respondents, the Court Receiver will refund the amount deposited by the said Respondents.

¶29

¶30

(d) This order will not preclude the first to third Respondents from taking out appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for seeking the reliefs claimed in the Notice of Motion No.107 of 2015;

¶31

(e) We make it clear that the proceedings of the Testamentary Suit No.577 of 2008 are not stayed and notwithstanding the pendency of the Appeal, the proceedings will continue;

ash

nml-706.16

(f) To enable the first to third Respondents to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, we direct that the Respondent No.5 shall not part with possession of the flat in question for a period of six weeks from today;

Dinesh Vallabhdas Kapadia. v. 1.Ramesh v.Kapadia and 4 Ors. through their C.A. Ramesh v.Kapadia.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Vallabhdas Kapadia. v. 1.Ramesh v.Kapadia and 4 Ors. through their C.A. Ramesh v.Kapadia.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwanath Dattaram Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Asian Natural Resources (India) Ltd. (Bhatia International Ltd.)(Org. Claimant/Awd. Debtor) Vs Vitol S. a. (Org. Res. /Awd. Holder)

M/S Siddhivinayak Builders Vs Kishankumar G Karla

Shri. Nilesh Prabhakar Mogal Vs Smt. Monali Nilesh Mogal

Ruparel Developers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Panna Sanga and 4 Ors.

Dr. Aparna Bhau Amrutsagar and Ors. Vs Nehru Nagar Shivvaibhav Chs Ltd. and Ors.