Full Text
TEST.CAS. 59/2018
Date of Decision: 17.04.2025 IN THE MATTER OF:
PRADEEP KUMRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anshumaan Sahni, Adv.
Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Adv. for R-3 to 5.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
ORDER
1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Kumra, under Section 278 read with Section 232 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking grant of Letters of Administration („LoA‟) in respect of the Registered Will dated 11.06.2010 (hereinafter referred to as “The Will‟)of the deceased, Late Shri B. R. Kumra („testator‟).
2. It is stated that the testator died on 24.05.2016 at Delhi. The deceased was a permanent resident of Delhi. The Death Certificate of the deceased has been placed on record.
KUMAR KAURAV
3. The family tree and relationship of the deceased with the parties are not in dispute. Their relations are summarized as under:
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. Name of Date of Filed before Recorded in │ │ Executor Relinquishment Hon'ble │ │ Order dated │ │ Court │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. Sh. Ashok 28.02.2023 IA 4594/2023 07.03.2023 │ │ Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:PRIYA Signed │ │ Kumra │ │ 2. Sh. Kamal 13.05.2023 IA 10111/2023 23.05.2023 │ │ Salhotra │ │ 8. Thereafter, an opportunity was granted to the parties to lead evidence. │ │ Mr. Kamal Salhotra, who was also one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, │ │ appeared as PW-1 and his testimony was recorded on 24.04.2025. The │ │ Petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Kumra, appeared as PW-2 and his statement was │ │ recorded on 05.03.2025. │ │ 9. From the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, the execution of the Will │ │ dated 11.06.2010 stands duly proved. It has been established that the Will │ │ was executed by the testator in a sound state of mind, and it was duly │ │ attested by Mr. Kamal Salhotra. The Will is registered and no objections │ │ have been raised by any of the legal heirs. There has been no cross- │ │ examination of the Petitioner or the attesting witness. │ │ 10. The Petitioner has filed on record a detailed list of the assets left │ │ behind by the deceased, to be administered in accordance with the Will │ │ dated 11.06.2010. These include: │ │ 1. Assets Bequeathed to the a. Commercial Flat bearing │ │ Petitioner – Shri Pradeep No.402, Pearl Best Heights-11, │ │ Kumra Plot No.C- 9, Netaji Subhash │ │ Place, Pitampura, Delhi │ │ measuring 813 sq. ft. approx. │ │ b. Flat No. CPU-212 and its │ │ parking space No. PU 1008 in │ │ DLF Capital Greens, Phase-11, │ │ Shivaji Marg, New Delhi │ │ measuring 1520 sq. ft. approx. │ │ Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:PRIYA Signed │ │ c. Shares and Mutual Fund lying │ │ with Citibank, HSBC, Kotak │ │ Bank and Ind Bank. │ │ d. Rolex Watch (Gold). │ │ e. All cash, FDR and other cash │ │ deposits with various Banks to │ │ be shared equally in three parts │ │ after payments made to third │ │ parties as mentioned in the Will. │ │ f. Gold Ornaments owned by Smt. │ │ Pushplata Kumra (wife of Late │ │ Sh. B.R. Kumra) │ │ 2. Assets Bequeathed to a. Entire Built-up property bearing │ │ Respondent No. 2 – Shri no. 69-70 double storey, S │ │ Dilshad Kumra: Block, New Rajinder Nagar, │ │ New Delhi measuring 210 sq. │ │ yds. │ │ b. Equal share of plot Situated at D- │ │ 13/2 Okhla Industrial Area, │ │ Phase- 11, New Delhi-110020 │ │ with Late Shri Raman Kumra. │ │ c. 182 Equity shares of Rs. 500/- │ │ each of M/s Delhi Surgical & │ │ Dressings Pvt. Ltd. │ │ d. Omega Watch. │ │ e. All Cash, FDR and other Cash │ │ Deposits with various banks to │ │ be shared equally in three parts │ │ after payments made to third │ │ parties as mentioned in the Will │ │ Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:PRIYA Signed │ │ f. Equal share of Outstanding │ │ capital of Late Shri B.R. Kumra │ │ in M/ s Delhi Surgical and │ │ Dressings. │ │ g. Gold Ornaments owned by Smt. │ │ Pushpalata Kumra │ │ 3. Assets Bequeathed to a. Flat at Park Place, DLF City, │ │ Respondents No. 3 to 5 measuring 2150 Sq. ft.. │ │ (Jointly): │ │ b. Equal share of plot Situated at D- │ │ 13/2 Okhla Industrial Area, │ │ Phase- II, New Delhi- 110020 │ │ with Late Shri Raman Kumra. │ │ c. 182 Equity Shares of Rs. 500/- │ │ each of M/s Delhi Surgical & │ │ Dressings Pvt. Ltd. │ │ d. Rolex Watch (No. 15223). │ │ e. All Cash FDR and Other Cash │ │ Deposits with various banks to │ │ shared equally in three parts after │ │ payments made to third parties as │ │ mentioned in the Will. │ │ f. Equal share of Outstanding │ │ capital of Late Shri B.R. Kumra │ │ in M/s Delhi Surgical and │ │ Dressings. │ │ g. Gold Ornaments owned by Smt. │ │ Pushpalata Kumra │ │ Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:PRIYA Signed │ │ 11. The Will also directs specific payments from the movable assets │ │ (bank accounts) to the following beneficiaries: │ │ Beneficiary Amount (INR) │ │ Grandson Mohit Kumra (S/o Late │ │ 5,00,000 │ │ Raman Kumra) │ │ Grandaughter Millie (D/o Late │ │ 2,00,000 │ │ Raman Kumra) │ │ Grandaughter Sarika (D/o Dilshad │ │ 2,00,000 │ │ Kumra) │ │ Grandaughter Namita (D/o Dilshad │ │ 2,00,000 │ │ Kumra) │ │ Grandaughter Nidhi (D/o Pradeep │ │ 2,00,000 │ │ Kumra) │ │ Grandaughter Pooja (D/o Pradeep │ │ 2,00,000 │ │ Kumra) │ │ Maid/servant Laxmi 1,00,000 │ │ Charity to PM Relief Fund 2,00,000 │ │ Charity to Andh Mahavidyalaya, New │ │ 1,50,000 │ │ Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi │ │ Charity to Durga Mandir, Ridge │ │ Road, Opposite New Rajinder Nagar, 50,000 │ │ New Delhi │ │ Gurunanak Darbar Gurudwara, Ridge │ │ 50,000 │ │ Road, New Rajinder, New Delhi │ │ 12. After disbursement of the above-mentioned payments, the residual │ │ cash deposits in the bank accounts of the deceased are to be distributed │ │ equally in 1/3rd shares among (i) Petitioner, (ii) Respondent No. 2, and (iii) │ │ Respondents No. 3 to 5 (jointly). │ │ 13. The Will bequeaths specific properties to each of the heirs, including │ │ the Petitioner, his late brother Raman Kumra, and Respondent No. 2. The │ │ same is not disputed by any of the beneficiaries and is supported by │ │ affidavits and oral statements. │ │ Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:PRIYA Signed │ │ 14. A Legal Notice dated 15.07.2018 was also issued by the Petitioner to │ │ Respondents No. 2 and 3, calling upon them to cooperate in the execution │ │ and mutation of the properties as per the Will. However, no steps were │ │ taken, prompting the present petition for LoA. │ │ 15. It is further stated that the Petitioner has not filed any other petition │ │ for grant of LoA before any other Court. The value of the estate is │ │ approximately Rs. 3 crores. Hence, this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to │ │ entertain the present petition. │ │ Findings and Analysis │ │ 16. This Court has perused the record and considered the submissions of │ │ the Petitioner. It is clear that the Will dated 11.06.2010 was validly executed │ │ and attested. The attesting witness has deposed to the same on oath, and │ │ there is no dispute inter se the family. │ │ 17. It is, thus, seen that in view of the aforesaid position, the Will dated │ │ 11.06.2010 stands proved as per the requirement of Section 63 of the stands │ │ proved as per the requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act and │ │ Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter „the Evidence │ │ Act‟). │ │ 18. Section 278 of the Succession Act, reads as under:- │ │
│ │ Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:PRIYA Signed │ │ (b) the family or other relatives of the deceased, and their respective │ │ residences; │ │ (c) the right in which the petitioner claims; │ │ (d) the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioner's │ │ hands; (e) when the application is to the District Judge, that the │ │ deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode, or had │ │ some property, situate within the jurisdiction of the Judge; and │ │ (f) when the application is to a District Delegate, that the deceased at │ │ the time of his death had a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction │ │ of such Delegate. │ │ (2) Where the application is to the District Judge and any portion of the │ │ assets likely to come to the petitioner‟s hands is situate in another │ │ situate.” │ │ 19. This Court in the case of Sh. Raj Rani Bhasin vs. State1 , has held │ │ that the person to whom LoA is granted does not thereby, become entitled to │ │ the property or estate of the deceased/testator and the estate still succeeds │ │ according to the law of succession applicable to the deceased/testator. The │ │ primary objective of a LoA, issued by the Court, is to authorize the │ │ appointed administrator to gather and consolidate the assets of the deceased │ │ or testator. It also allows the administrator to interact with relevant │ │ authorities where such assets are held or recorded, enabling the realization │ │ of those assets and facilitating their transfer to the rightful successors in │ │ accordance with the applicable laws of succession. It was further held that │ │ the administrator is required to, from time-to-time, to file accounts in the │ │ Court with respect to the administration of the estate and/ or as to how the │ │ estate has been settled/ transferred to the successors in accordance with the │ │ law of succession applicable to the deceased and upon the administrator │ │ 158(200) DLT 713 │ │ Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:PRIYA Signed │ │ defaulting in the same, the Court retains the power to revoke the grant. For │ │ the sake of clarity, Paragraph no.9 of the aforesaid decision reads as under: │ │ “9. The person to whom letters of administration are granted │ │ does not thereby become entitled to the property or estate of the │ │ deceased. The estate still succeeds according to the law of │ │ succession application to the deceased. The purpose of Letters of │ │ Administration is merely to enable the administrator so │ │ appointed by the Court to collect/ assimilate the properties of the │ │ deceased, and/ or to deal with the various authorities with whom │ │ the properties of the deceased may be vested or recorded and to │ │ realize the same and / or to have the same transferred in the │ │ names ofthe successors in accordance with law of succession │ │ applicable to the deceased. The administrator is required to, │ │ from time-to-time, file accounts in the Court with respect to the │ │ administration of the estate and/ or as to how the estate has been │ │ settled/ transferred to the successors in accordance with law of │ │ succession application to the deceased and upon the │ │ administrator defaulting in the same, the Court retains the power │ │ to revoke the grant” │ │ 20. Conclusively, both nominated Executors have formally relinquished │ │ their roles. All legal heirs have either affirmed the Will or have not │ │ contested the same. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to the grant of │ │ LoA in favour of the Petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Kumra, in terms of the Will │ │ dated 11.06.2010. │ │ 21. The Registry is accordingly directed to issue LoA in favour of the │ │ Petitioner. It is further clarified that the Court Fees shall be payable │ │ proportionately by each beneficiary as per the bequeathed share, to avoid │ │ any ambiguity at the Registry. │ │ 22. The detailed asset list and supporting documentation, including the │ │ Will, death certificates, legal notice, and relinquishment undertakings, shall │ │ form part of the record. │ │ Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:PRIYA Signed │ │ 23. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the title or │ │ ownership disputes, if any, with respect to the properties forming part of the │ │ estate of the testator. │ │ 24. The petition is accordingly allowed. │ │ (PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV) │ │ JUDGE │ │ APRIL 17, 2025/p/sph │ │ Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:PRIYA Signed │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Shri Son Petitioner Accepts Will
│ │ Pradeep │ │ Kumra │ │ 2. Shri Son Respondent Gave his No │ │ Dilshad No. 2 Objection │ │ Kumra to the Will vide │ │ Letter │ │ dt. 14.01.2018. │ │ His statement │ │ was │ │ recorded before │ │ Hon'ble Court │ │ and │ │ reflects in Order │ │ dt. │ │ 14.01.2018 │ │ 3. Mrs. Spouse of Respondent Gave No │ │ Parvesh Pre-Deceased No. 3 objection to │ │ Kumra Son the Will vide │ │ w/o Late (Daughter-in affidavit │ │ Deceased) │ │ 4. Shri Mohit Son of Pre- Respondent Gave No │ │ Kumra S/o Deceased Son No. 4 objection to │ │ Late Sh. (Grandson to the Will vide │ │ Raman Deceased) affidavit │ │ Kumra dated │ │ 10.12.2019. │ │ 5. Smt. Milli Daughter of Respondent Gave No │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────�
��
15. It is further stated that the Petitioner has not filed any other petition for grant of LoA before any other Court. The value of the estate is approximately Rs. 3 crores. Hence, this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Findings and Analysis
16. This Court has perused the record and considered the submissions of the Petitioner. It is clear that the Will dated 11.06.2010 was validly executed and attested. The attesting witness has deposed to the same on oath, and there is no dispute inter se the family.
17. It is, thus, seen that in view of the aforesaid position, the Will dated 11.06.2010 stands proved as per the requirement of Section 63 of the stands proved as per the requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter „the Evidence Act‟).
18. Section 278 of the Succession Act, reads as under:- “278. Petition for letters of administration.—(1) Application for letters of administration shall be made by petition distinctly written as aforesaid and stating— (a) the time and place of the deceased's death; (b) the family or other relatives of the deceased, and their respective residences;
(c) the right in which the petitioner claims;
(d) the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioner's hands; (e) when the application is to the District Judge, that the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode, or had some property, situate within the jurisdiction of the Judge; and (f) when the application is to a District Delegate, that the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of such Delegate. (2) Where the application is to the District Judge and any portion of the assets likely to come to the petitioner‟s hands is situate in another State, the petition shall further state the amount of such assets in each State and the District Judges within whose jurisdiction such assets are situate.”
19. This Court in the case of Sh. Raj Rani Bhasin vs. State[1], has held that the person to whom LoA is granted does not thereby, become entitled to the property or estate of the deceased/testator and the estate still succeeds according to the law of succession applicable to the deceased/testator. The primary objective of a LoA, issued by the Court, is to authorize the appointed administrator to gather and consolidate the assets of the deceased or testator. It also allows the administrator to interact with relevant authorities where such assets are held or recorded, enabling the realization of those assets and facilitating their transfer to the rightful successors in accordance with the applicable laws of succession. It was further held that the administrator is required to, from time-to-time, to file accounts in the Court with respect to the administration of the estate and/ or as to how the estate has been settled/ transferred to the successors in accordance with the law of succession applicable to the deceased and upon the administrator 158(200) DLT 713 defaulting in the same, the Court retains the power to revoke the grant. For the sake of clarity, Paragraph no.9 of the aforesaid decision reads as under: “9. The person to whom letters of administration are granted does not thereby become entitled to the property or estate of the deceased. The estate still succeeds according to the law of succession application to the deceased. The purpose of Letters of Administration is merely to enable the administrator so appointed by the Court to collect/ assimilate the properties of the deceased, and/ or to deal with the various authorities with whom the properties of the deceased may be vested or recorded and to realize the same and / or to have the same transferred in the names ofthe successors in accordance with law of succession applicable to the deceased. The administrator is required to, from time-to-time, file accounts in the Court with respect to the administration of the estate and/ or as to how the estate has been settled/ transferred to the successors in accordance with law of succession application to the deceased and upon the administrator defaulting in the same, the Court retains the power to revoke the grant”
20. Conclusively, both nominated Executors have formally relinquished their roles. All legal heirs have either affirmed the Will or have not contested the same. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to the grant of LoA in favour of the Petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Kumra, in terms of the Will dated 11.06.2010.
21. The Registry is accordingly directed to issue LoA in favour of the Petitioner. It is further clarified that the Court Fees shall be payable proportionately by each beneficiary as per the bequeathed share, to avoid any ambiguity at the Registry.
22. The detailed asset list and supporting documentation, including the Will, death certificates, legal notice, and relinquishment undertakings, shall form part of the record.
23. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the title or ownership disputes, if any, with respect to the properties forming part of the estate of the testator.
24. The petition is accordingly allowed.
JUDGE APRIL 17, 2025/p/sph