Supreme Court Transfers Testamentary Case to Delhi High Court, Dismisses Partition Suit Transfer: Ravinder Nath Agarwal vs. Yogender Nath Agarwal (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 February 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 67
Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J.

When multiple legal proceedings arise from the same family dispute, which court should handle them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a partition suit and a testamentary case. The core issue was whether a testamentary case, filed after a partition suit, should take precedence, and where these cases should be tried when properties are located in different jurisdictions. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the interplay between these types of cases and determined the appropriate court for resolution.

The judgment was delivered by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The case revolves around the family of the late Shri Badri Nath Agarwal, who passed away on May 7, 2011, leaving behind five sons and a daughter. The primary dispute arose from a Will dated April 6, 2011, which the eldest son, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal, claimed bequeathed a significant portion of agricultural land to him. This led to a series of legal actions among the siblings.

Initially, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal got the mutation of the land in his name, which was challenged by his sister, Lily Nath, in a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand. Lily Nath also filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction in Nainital. In response, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal also filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction. Subsequently, Yogender Nath Agarwal, the youngest son, filed a suit for partition of all properties in the High Court of Delhi in September 2012, which was later transferred to the Additional District Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi, in 2016.

Following this, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal filed a transfer petition seeking to move the partition suit to Nainital. After the stay on the partition suit was vacated, he filed a testamentary case in the High Court of Uttarakhand, seeking letters of administration based on the disputed Will. In response, Lily Nath filed a transfer petition to move the testamentary case to the District Court, Saket, where the partition suit was pending.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The initial legal actions included a writ petition by Lily Nath challenging the mutation of property in favor of her brother, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal, and two civil suits for permanent injunction filed by both Lily Nath and Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal in Nainital. The partition suit was originally filed in the High Court of Delhi, then transferred to the District Court at Saket. After the Supreme Court vacated the stay on the partition suit, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal initiated testamentary proceedings in the High Court of Uttarakhand. This led to the filing of the second transfer petition by Lily Nath.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation and application of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Key provisions include:

• Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section defines the jurisdiction of the District Judge in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration. It states, “The District Judge shall have jurisdiction in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration in all cases within his district.” It also specifies that courts outside of major cities require state government authorization to handle such applications for Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains, except in cases to which Section 57 applies.
• Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section extends certain provisions of the Act to Wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains within specific territories, including those under the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal and the High Courts of Madras and Bombay.
• Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section grants the High Court concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in exercising powers related to probates and letters of administration.
• Section 212 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section states that no right to an intestate’s property can be established without letters of administration, except for Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Indian Christians, or Parsis.
• Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section mandates that no right as an executor or legatee can be established without a grant of probate or letters of administration, except for Wills made by Muslims or Indian Christians, and for certain classes of Wills made by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, or Jains as specified in Section 57. It states, “No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in [India] has granted probate of the Will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the Will or with a copy of an authenticated copy of the Will annexed.”
• Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: This section defines the effect of probate or letters of administration, stating they are conclusive throughout the state where granted. It also includes a proviso that probates and letters granted by a High Court or a District Judge, under certain conditions, have effect throughout other states.

These provisions are crucial in determining which court has jurisdiction over testamentary matters and when probate or letters of administration are necessary. The interplay between these sections determines the validity and enforceability of a Will, particularly in cases involving diverse religious and territorial contexts.

Arguments

The petitioner, Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal, argued for the transfer of the partition suit from Delhi to Nainital, primarily on the grounds of his age, health issues, and the location of the immovable property in Nainital. He also contended that testamentary proceedings, being proceedings in rem, should take precedence over the partition suit. The petitioner’s arguments can be broken down as follows:

• Personal Hardship: The petitioner claimed he was 68 years old, suffering from multiple diseases, undergoing cardiac care, and had suffered a paralytic stroke.
• Location of Property: The main immovable property in dispute was located in Nainital, Uttarakhand.
• Jurisdictional Bar: He argued that other courts were barred from jurisdiction under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
• Primacy of Testamentary Proceedings: The petitioner contended that testamentary proceedings are proceedings in rem and should have primacy over other proceedings.
• Section 273 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: He argued that under Proviso (b) of Section 273, a grant of letters of administration by the District Court at Saket would not be effective in other states if the value of property outside the state exceeded Rs. 10,000.

The respondents, led by Lily Nath, argued against the transfer of the partition suit and sought the transfer of the testamentary case to Delhi. They contended that the testamentary proceedings were initiated deliberately in Uttarakhand after seven years of the institution of the partition suit in Delhi, and that the petitioner was abusing the process of the court. Their arguments can be summarized as:

• Abuse of Process: The respondents argued that the testamentary proceedings were initiated deliberately in Uttarakhand after a long delay to gain an unfair advantage.
• Delay in Initiating Testamentary Proceedings: The testamentary case was filed long after the partition suit, suggesting a strategic move rather than a genuine need.
• Jurisdiction of Delhi Courts: The respondents pointed out that the Delhi courts had jurisdiction over the matter, especially since one of the properties was located in Delhi.
• Convenience: The respondents argued that the partition suit was already pending in Delhi, and it would be more convenient to transfer the testamentary case there.

The petitioner relied on cases such as Ishwardeo Narain Singh vs. Smt. Kamta Devi and Others, Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs. Jasjit Singh and Others, T. Venkata Narayana and Others vs. Venkata Subbamma (Smt.) (dead) & Others, Balbir Singh Wasu vs. Lakhbir Singh & Others, and Smt. Rukmani Devi and Others vs. Narendra Lal Gupta to support his arguments on the primacy of testamentary proceedings and the limitations of a District Court’s jurisdiction. The respondents argued that the petitioner’s arguments were not valid.

The innovativeness in the argument was that the petitioner argued that the testamentary proceedings should take precedence over the partition suit, even though it was filed much later, due to the nature of testamentary proceedings being in rem.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:

1. Whether the partition suit pending in the District Court at Saket, New Delhi, should be transferred to the District Court, Nainital, Uttarakhand, or whether the testamentary case pending in the High Court of Uttarakhand should be transferred to the District Court, Saket, to be tried along with the partition suit.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the relevant legal provisions. The Court observed that the petitioner had initially acted on the basis of the Will without seeking letters of administration, and that the testamentary case was filed much later. The Court also noted that both the High Court of Delhi and the District Court at Saket had jurisdiction over the properties in question.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the sequence of events and the conduct of the petitioner. The Court found that the petitioner had initially acted on the basis of the Will without seeking letters of administration and that the testamentary case was filed much later, after the stay on the partition suit had been vacated. This led the Court to conclude that the testamentary proceedings were a strategic move to gain an unfair advantage. The Court also emphasized that the petitioner could have filed the testamentary proceedings in Delhi, where the partition suit was already pending.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and factual analysis. The Court noted that the petitioner was not disabled by Section 213(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, from relying upon the Will without first obtaining letters of administration. The Court also considered the convenience of the parties and the efficient administration of justice.

The sentiment analysis shows that the Court was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the petitioner’s conduct and the sequence of events, than by purely legal considerations.

Key Takeaways

• Testamentary proceedings do not automatically take precedence over previously filed partition suits, especially when initiated strategically.
• The conduct of the parties and the sequence of events play a crucial role in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for legal proceedings.
• Courts will not allow parties to abuse the legal process by initiating proceedings in a different jurisdiction to gain an unfair advantage.
• The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in testamentary matters.
• The location of parties is not a major concern in the current era of virtual hearings.
• Parties can rely on a Will in a civil action without getting it probated if the case falls outside the purview of Sections 57 and 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The testamentary case pending in the High Court of Uttarakhand was transferred to the High Court of Delhi.
• The partition suit pending in the District Court, Saket, was transferred to the High Court of Delhi.
• The High Court of Delhi was directed to club both the testamentary case and the partition suit and take them up together for disposal, giving priority to the partition suit due to its age.
• The parties were given liberty to move applications for examination of witnesses, including the attesters of the Will, through video conference or court-appointed commissioners.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that testamentary proceedings do not automatically take precedence over previously filed partition suits, especially when initiated strategically. The Court emphasized that the conduct of the parties and the sequence of events play a crucial role in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for legal proceedings. This judgment clarifies that parties cannot abuse the legal process by initiating proceedings in a different jurisdiction to gain an unfair advantage.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition seeking to move the partition suit to Nainital and allowed the transfer petition seeking to move the testamentary case to the High Court of Delhi. The Court emphasized that testamentary proceedings do not automatically take precedence over previously filed partition suits and that the conduct of the parties is a crucial factor in determining the appropriate jurisdiction. The Court also directed the High Court of Delhi to club both cases and dispose of them together, giving priority to the older partition suit.