Territorial jurisdiction and anti-suit injunction in probate disputes upheld to protect the estate from parallel proceedings.

Delhi High Court considered whether it was the proper forum for a testamentary dispute and whether a protective injunction should restrain trustees and supporting defendants from dealing with the estate or pursuing parallel proceedings. It held that territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens were established by the Delhi connections of the wills, the deceased, the beneficiary and executrix, and the estate's Indian nexus, so the jurisdictional objection failed. It further found that a permanent injunction was justified to preserve the estate, prevent dissipation of assets, and avoid parallel proceedings that could frustrate pending probate and testamentary adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction and was the forum conveniens to entertain the testamentary dispute, and (ii) whether a permanent injunction should issue restraining the trustees and supporting defendants from dealing with the estate or initiating parallel proceedings concerning it.

Issue (i): Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction and was the forum conveniens to entertain the testamentary dispute.

Analysis: The wills were executed at Delhi, the deceased had his abode there, the beneficiary and executrix were residents of Delhi, and the estate had a substantial connection with an Indian company. The foreign court had also recognised the Delhi High Court as the appropriate forum for deciding the validity of the wills. On these facts, the cause of action arose in Delhi and the objections based on lack of territorial jurisdiction and forum non conveniens could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction failed and the Delhi High Court was held to be the proper forum.

Issue (ii): Whether a permanent injunction should issue restraining the trustees and supporting defendants from dealing with the estate or initiating parallel proceedings concerning it.

Analysis: The trustees were not parties to the testamentary proceedings but were in control of estate assets. The Court held that allowing them to use estate funds to finance litigation or otherwise deal with the property could render the pending probate and testamentary proceedings infructuous and dissipate the estate. Applying the principles governing anti-suit injunctions, the Court found that the defendants were amenable to its jurisdiction, the ends of justice required protection of the estate, and the foreign proceedings would be oppressive in the sense that they would add nothing beyond what could be decided locally. Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act placed the estate in the executor, and the relief was not barred by the Specific Relief Act.

Conclusion: A permanent injunction was warranted against the defendants to preserve the estate and prevent parallel or prejudicial proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded and the estate was protected by injunctive relief in aid of the pending probate and testamentary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a probate court has the closest connection with the estate and pending proceedings, and parallel foreign action threatens dissipation of the estate or frustrates the adjudication, an anti-suit or protective injunction may issue to secure the ends of justice despite objections based on comity or foreign forum choice.

---