TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Decision: Estate Properties Remain, Executor Not Liable, Expenses Clarified</h1> The court found that the Panchannagram properties remained part of Raj Mohan's estate as transactions transferring them to Nishadini were deemed ... - Issues Involved:1. Title to Panchannagram properties.2. Title to the Calcutta house.3. Title to the gauti tenures.4. Partition and accounting of debutter properties.5. Executor's liability for the sale of the Calcutta house.6. Genuineness of the transfer of interest by Sailendra to Nishadini.7. Directions for marriage expenses of great-grandsons and great-granddaughters.8. Costs of the suit and appeal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Title to Panchannagram Properties:The court examined whether the Panchannagram properties formed part of Raj Mohan's estate or had passed into the hands of Nishadini as a beneficial owner. The properties were originally part of Raj Mohan's estate. Chandra Nath executed a conveyance to Srinath Bose, who later conveyed it to Nishadini. The plaintiffs contended these transactions were fictitious. The court found no evidence of consideration paid by Srinath and no possession by Nishadini, concluding the transactions were fictitious and the properties remained part of Raj Mohan's estate.2. Title to the Calcutta House:The house belonged to Raj Mohan and was mortgaged to Mary Ratter. After Raj Mohan's death, the house was sold in execution of a decree and purchased by Shama Charan Ballabh, who later conveyed it to Nishadini. The court found no evidence that Nishadini paid the purchase money from her own funds. Evidence showed the house was treated as part of Raj Mohan's estate, and the court concluded the transfer to Nishadini was for the benefit of the estate, not for her personal benefit.3. Title to the Gauti Tenures:The gauti tenures stood in Nishadini's name, either created by Chandra Nath or acquired by her. The plaintiffs claimed these were fictitious. The court decided that the gauti tenures would hold good during Nishadini's lifetime and revert to Raj Mohan's estate upon her death, with no encumbrances created by her.4. Partition and Accounting of Debutter Properties:The properties described as debutter (endowed) could not be partitioned. However, if Upendra had enjoyed their income, he must account for it.5. Executor's Liability for the Sale of the Calcutta House:The court examined whether Upendra, as executor, was liable for not preventing the sale of the Calcutta house. It found no evidence of dereliction of duty, as the sale was executed to satisfy a decree against Chandra Nath's sons, and there was no proof of inadequate sale price or funds available to Upendra to avert the sale. The court concluded Upendra was not liable for the sale.6. Genuineness of the Transfer by Sailendra:The plaintiffs initially challenged the transfer by Sailendra to Nishadini as benami. However, they later took no interest in this matter. The court set aside the Subordinate Judge's decision and left the matter open for determination in a subsequent suit, assuming the transfer was genuine for the current proceedings.7. Directions for Marriage Expenses:The court upheld the Subordinate Judge's decision that the directions in the will for marriage expenses of great-grandsons and great-granddaughters were valid. Directions were to be given to set apart sums from the annual income to meet these expenses as needed.8. Costs of the Suit and Appeal:The Subordinate Judge directed that costs already incurred be borne by the parties and subsequent costs by the estate. The respondents contended costs should be paid out of the estate. The court agreed, stating that costs in both the lower court and the appeal must be paid out of the estate.Additional Matter:The Subordinate Judge directed the sale of immovable properties to satisfy estate debts. The High Court modified this, allowing the Receiver to grant permanent leases rather than sell valuable properties, finding it more beneficial to the estate.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed in part, and the decree of the Subordinate Judge was modified as mentioned. A self-contained decree was to be drawn up to avoid future disputes.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
