Delhi High Court: In a case where an application was filed by one of the beneficiaries of the Will under probate, under Section 247 of the Succession Act, 1925 seeking appointment of Administrator of the Estate and assets of the testator, a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. dismissed the application and held that an executor appointed in probate proceedings would not be readily removed unless gross misconduct, gross mismanagement, abuse or misuse of probate was demonstrated. Further, the Court held that there should be clear evidence that the executor’s continued presence was detrimental to the property and would frustrate the will for which he was charged by law.
Background
The present application had been filed by Respondent 4, who was one of the beneficiaries of the Will under probate, under Section 247 of the Succession Act, 1925 (Act) seeking appointment of Administrator of the Estate and Assets of the Testator and for issuance of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner, Respondents 2 and 3 (testator’s wife and son respectively) from alienating or creating third-party rights qua the estate and assets of the testator in the Will.
The testator was married to Respondent 2 and out of the marriage two children (Respondents 3 and 4) were born. A Will was executed by the testator in 2017 and Respondent 3 and 4 (the testator’s son and daughter respectively) were the only two beneficiaries under the Will. The testator left for heavenly abode in 2021 and after the testator’s death and upon coming to the know about the existence of the alleged Will, his daughter objected to the genuineness of the said Will and sought details of any transactions which had been undertaken under the said Will. Further, his daughter requested the Executors to refrain from accepting any change in the ownership of the assets and properties without a valid probate of the Will. In 2022, the probate petition was filed by the executors for probate of the Will and in the same petition, Respondent 4 filed an application for status quo on the Estate and the assets of the testator and directions for freezing of voting rights in respect of shareholding of the testator in various corporate entities, but the application was dismissed.
Submissions on behalf of the Applicant/Respondent 4
Counsel for Respondent 4 submitted that the instant Will had been executed under duress, coercion and undue influence and the testator was in a feeble state of mind and his physical condition was severely impacted at the time of the execution of the Will. It was submitted that the executors, in connivance with the testator’s wife and son had parted with the ownership and possession of many assets of the testator even though Respondent 4 had taken a strong objection to the genuineness of the Will. Counsel also submitted that the executors had failed to take into consideration Section 337 of the Act as the Executor was not empowered to pay or deliver any legacy until the expiration of one year from the death of the testator. Even otherwise, the interest of justice requires that until and unless the alleged Will was proved and probate as prayed was granted, the entire estate of the testator should be preserved. Therefore, it was submitted that it was a fit case, wherein this Court should invoke its powers under Section 247 of the Act and appoint an Administrator of the Estate and Assets of the testator.
Submissions on behalf of the Executor/Petitioner 2
Counsel for the Executor submitted that he had taken every effort to stand by the wishes of the testator and Petitioner 2 who was the first cousin of both Respondents 3 and 4 (the testator’s children), was a resident of Mumbai and the bulk of the estate of the testator was situated in New Delhi and Petitioner 2 was completely removed from the daily life of Respondents 2 and 3, therefore, it was not possible that Petitioner 2 was acting in connivance with Respondents 2 and 3. It was submitted that there was no requirement in law or otherwise for the respondents to be aware of the Will upon its execution and the executor’s responsibility commenced only on the death of the testator.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 2 and 3
Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the appropriate and the legal course would have been to first move an application under Section 301 of the Act seeking removal of the executor, and then only an application could have been moved under Section 247 of the Act seeking appointment of an administrator pendente lite. Therefore, the present application was non-maintainable.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that “it is trite law that the testator’s wish regarding as to who will be the executor of his estate and carry out his Will must typically be respected, and an executor named by the testator should not be removed from his office unless, there is convincing proof that his continued appointment would be harmful to the estates of the deceased and frustrate the testator’s Will. The named executor cannot be removed for a few isolated minor mistakes. According to Section 211 of the Act, the executor of the testator’s will serve as the testator’s legal representative for all purposes and becomes the owner of the testator’s property as soon as the Testator passes away. It was a well-established legal principle that the executor may exercise his authority and carry out the conditions of the Will even if probate was not granted. In fact, one of the key differences between an executor and administrator was that the former may act even before obtaining probate, whilst the latter cannot act until he had been awarded letters of administration. The interest of an executor in the estate of the deceased vests in him immediately on the death of the testator”.
Therefore, the Court held that an executor appointed in probate proceedings would not be readily removed unless gross misconduct, gross mismanagement, abuse, or misuse of probate was demonstrated. Further, the Court held that there should be clear evidence that the executor’s continued presence was detrimental to the property and would frustrate the will for which he was charged by law and the records of the Will to administer.
The Court held that naming an administrator pendente lite would not come up until the Executor was removed by the appropriate Court in accordance with Section 301 of the Act. Further, the Court noted that Section 332 of the Act had been complied with in the present case as there had been subsequent ratification of the transactions entered into by Respondent 3 by the executor. Moreover, the Court noted that the language used in Section 337 of the Act was that the executor was ‘not bound’ and the language was not that the executor was ‘barred’.
The Court also held that the court of probate was a court of conscience and not a court of suspicion and the wishes of the testator could not be throttled merely because of certain aspersions were being casted on the authenticity of the Will without any basis. A registered document carries a rebuttable presumption in its favour and it is presumed to be genuine in terms of Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, 1872. For this, the Court relied on Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353, wherein the Supreme Court held that “there was a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption”.
The Court held that the present application was not only liable to be dismissed on merits but also on the grounds of maintainability as no preceding application under Section 301 of the Act had been filed by the Respondent 4.
[Swapnil Gupta v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4580, decided on 23-12-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner(s): Advocate Samrat Nigam;
Advocate Angad Mehta;
For the Respondent(s): Senior Advocate Rajesh Yadav;
Advocate Pavitra Kaur;
Advocate Tanmaya Mehta;
Advocate Rudrajit Ghosh;
Advocate Ashu Goyal;
Advocate Karan Nagrath;
Advocate Ruchika Arora;
Advocate Niharila Nagrath.
