Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a testamentary dispute concerning the estate of Amardeep Singh Sujan Singh Chadha (the testator). The testator died on 5th October 2018, leaving behind a will dated 4th October 2018, executed just one day before his death. The respondent, Davinder Kaur, the testator's wife, filed a testamentary petition seeking probate of the will, which appointed her as the sole executrix and bequeathed the entire estate to her, excluding the appellant, Inderjeet Singh, the testator's son. The appellant filed a caveat opposing the grant of probate, alleging that the will was executed under suspicious circumstances and undue influence. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 15th February 2019, allowed the respondent's application under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, appointing her as administrator pendente lite and directing the appellant to hand over possession of the estate, including the hotel business run by the appellant. The appellant appealed against this order. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the learned Single Judge erred in appointing the administrator without properly considering the serious issues raised by the appellant regarding the validity of the will. The court noted that the will was executed when the testator was seriously ill, the appellant was excluded without any reason, and the propounder (respondent) failed to remove suspicious circumstances. The court emphasized that the appointment of an administrator pendente lite should not be made as a matter of course and must be based on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed that the status quo be maintained pending the final hearing of the testamentary petition.
Headnote
A) Testamentary Law - Appointment of Administrator Pendente Lite - Section 247 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - The court must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss before appointing an administrator pendente lite. The appointment should not be made as a matter of course, especially when the caveator has raised serious issues regarding the validity of the will, such as suspicious circumstances and undue influence. (Paras 10-15) B) Testamentary Law - Suspicious Circumstances - Burden on Propounder - The propounder of a will must remove all suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. In this case, the will was executed when the testator was seriously ill and the appellant, who was the natural object of testamentary affection, was excluded without plausible explanation. The court held that these factors raise a serious dispute to be tried. (Paras 16-20) C) Testamentary Law - Right of Caveator - The caveator has a right to oppose the grant of probate and to be heard. The appointment of an administrator pendente lite should not prejudice the caveator's case or effectively decide the testamentary petition at an interim stage. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in appointing the respondent as an administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and directing the appellant to hand over possession of the estate including the hotel business, pending the final determination of the testamentary petition.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order dated 15th February 2019 set aside. Status quo to be maintained pending final hearing of the testamentary petition. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Appointment of administrator pendente lite
- Testamentary jurisdiction
- Section 247 of Indian Succession Act
- 1925
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Suspicious circumstances surrounding will
- Undue influence
- Propounder of will must remove suspicion
- Right of caveator to oppose grant of probate
