2019 (4) TMI 2154 - HC - Indian Laws

Administrator pendente lite appointment upheld amid suspicious property transfers before death

Inderjeet Singh Amardeep Singh Chadha Versus Davinder Kaur Amardeep Singh Chadha

The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal challenging the appointment of an Administrator pendente lite. The court examined suspicious circumstances surrounding ... Jurisdictional error in appointing Administrator pendente lite - Direction to handover the possession of the assets in custody - Whether appointment of Administrator pendente lite is justifiable? - HELD THAT:- It is not a mere factum of the appellant and Mrs. Parmeet Kaur allegedly residing together despite a decree of divorce. Nor is it restricted to the personal marital life of the appellant and Mrs. Parmeet Kaur. The circumstances in which registered documents have been allegedly got executed whereby the respondent is shown to have gifted the properties to not only her grand-daughter but also to Parmeet Kaur, the divorced wife of the appellant, cannot be said to be insignificant or inconsequential. As a part of settlement of marital dispute, under the decree of divorce, three immovable properties were transferred in favour of Mrs. Parmeet Kaur by the appellant. The two immovable properties, which stood in the name of the respondent, were shown to have been gifted away by the respondent by the gift deeds dated 18th March 2017. The flurry of activities in close proximity to the death of the deceased, i.e., 27th April 2017, namely (i) a decree of divorce between the appellant and Parmeet Kaur dated 30th January 2017; (ii) the marriage of the appellant and Sonu Pandey on 14th February 2017; (iii) the execution of the two gift deeds by the respondent on 18th March 2017, (iv) the execution of the alleged Will by the testator in favour of the appellant on 12th April 2017 tell a different story and indicate an urgency of purpose. They cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidences. There is material to indicate that the respondent was sought to be divested of all the immovable properties and they were tried to be settled upon first wife and the daughter of the appellant. Undoubtedly, the validity or otherwise of the gift deeds whereby the respondent is shown to have gifted the properties in favour of Parmeet Kaur and Hansmeet Kaur is a matter of trial. Nonetheless, taking an overall view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was justified in drawing an inference that the appointment of the administrator pendente lite was expedient. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdictional error in appointing Administrator pendente lite.2. Justifiability of appointing Administrator pendente lite.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdictional Error in Appointing Administrator Pendente Lite:The appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed a jurisdictional error by expanding the scope of testamentary proceedings, which should only concern the validity and genuineness of the Will, not the property in question. The appellant argued that the testamentary court does not have inherent power to pass interim orders related to property protection, as per the judgments in Rupali Mehta Vs. Smt. Tina Narinder Sain Mehta and Ramchandra Ganpatrao Hande alias Handege Vs. Vithalrao Hande & Ors.However, the court clarified that the testamentary court has the jurisdiction to appoint an administrator pendente lite under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which empowers the court to appoint an administrator to manage and preserve the estate during the pendency of a suit regarding the validity of a Will. The court emphasized that this provision ensures the estate is managed and preserved for those ultimately entitled to it. The court thus rejected the jurisdictional challenge raised by the appellant.2. Justifiability of Appointing Administrator Pendente Lite:The court examined whether the appointment of an administrator pendente lite was justifiable based on the facts of the case. The court noted the strained relations between the testator, the respondent, and the appellant, and the series of legal proceedings initiated by the testator and the respondent against the appellant, including allegations of misappropriation and waste of the estate by the appellant.The court considered the appellant's actions, such as the execution of gift deeds transferring properties to his first wife and daughter, and the payment of substantial amounts from the hotel business to his first wife, despite a decree of divorce. The court found that these actions indicated an urgency of purpose and a potential threat to the preservation of the estate.The court also took into account the fact that the Will propounded by the appellant itself bequeathed the estate to the respondent, albeit for her lifetime, and that the appellant had been managing the hotel business and utilizing its income for personal obligations. The court concluded that there was strong material indicating that the appellant was wasting the estate and that the appointment of an administrator pendente lite was necessary to protect and preserve the estate.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appointment of the respondent as an administrator pendente lite to manage and preserve the estate of the deceased testator. The court found that the learned Single Judge acted within jurisdiction and that the appointment was justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The request for a stay of execution and operation of the impugned order was also rejected.