Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two interim applications in a testamentary petition for grant of Letters of Administration. The petitioner, Uday Sharad Kulkarni, claimed to be a relative of the deceased Claude Lila Narayan Parulekar, who died intestate at Pune on 13 September 2016, leaving a bungalow at Pune. The petitioner filed the petition in the Bombay High Court, asserting that the deceased left properties within Greater Bombay and throughout Maharashtra, but the only property scheduled was at Pune. The caveator, Jeev Raksha Animal Welfare Trust, opposed the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, as the deceased resided and died in Pune and no property within the High Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction was pleaded. The caveator also filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the petition. The petitioner then sought to amend the petition to include additional movable and immovable properties, including shares in companies whose registered offices are in Mumbai, arguing that this would confer jurisdiction. The court examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court. It held that the High Court's testamentary jurisdiction is limited to cases where the deceased had a fixed place of abode within its ordinary original civil jurisdiction or left property within that jurisdiction. Since the deceased lived and died in Pune, and the only immovable property initially pleaded was in Pune, no part of the cause of action arose within Mumbai. The amendment sought to add properties that were either outside Mumbai or, in the case of shares, did not constitute property within Mumbai merely because the companies' registered offices were there. The court found the amendment application mala fide, filed to overcome the jurisdiction defect. Consequently, the court dismissed the amendment application and allowed the caveator's application, rejecting the testamentary petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for want of jurisdiction and cause of action.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint - Where the petition for grant of Letters of Administration discloses no cause of action within the court's territorial limits, it is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, even if an amendment is sought to add properties outside jurisdiction. Held that the court must examine jurisdiction at the threshold and cannot allow amendment to create jurisdiction where none exists (Paras 21-30). B) Succession Law - Letters of Administration - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 300 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Concurrent Jurisdiction - The concurrent jurisdiction under Section 300 does not extend to matters beyond the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court; the High Court can only grant Letters of Administration in respect of properties within its ordinary original civil jurisdiction or where the deceased had a fixed place of abode within that jurisdiction. Held that the petition was filed without any cause of action within Mumbai and the amendment sought to add properties outside Mumbai cannot confer jurisdiction (Paras 22-28). C) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Mala Fide - An amendment sought to include properties that do not fall within the court's territorial jurisdiction, filed after the caveator raised the jurisdiction objection, is mala fide and cannot be allowed. Held that the amendment application was an attempt to confer jurisdiction on the court which it otherwise lacks (Paras 29-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition for grant of Letters of Administration when the deceased died and resided outside its ordinary original civil jurisdiction and no property within that jurisdiction is initially pleaded; and whether an amendment to include properties allegedly within jurisdiction can cure the defect.
Final Decision
Interim Application (L) No. 30893 of 2022 for amendment is dismissed. Interim Application No. 2188 of 2024 for rejection of the petition is allowed. Testamentary Petition No. 2500 of 2018 is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of territorial jurisdiction and cause of action.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Letters of Administration
- Indian Succession Act 1925 Section 300
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Amendment of pleadings
- Cause of action
