Ravinder Nath Agarwal v. Yogender Nath Agarwal [February 12, 2021]

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 6

Ravinder Nath Agarwal v. Yogender Nath Agarwal [February 12, 2021]

EQUIVALENT CITATIONS	AIR 2021SUPREME COURT 3156, AIRONLINE 2021 SC 272
DATE OF JUDGMENT	12^th FEBRUARY, 2021
COURT	HON’BLE SUPREME COURT
PETITIONER	RAVINDER NATH AGARWAL
RESPONDENT	YOGENDER NATH AGARWAL
BENCH	V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

INTRODUCTION

The case Ravinder Nath Agarwal v. Yogender Nath Agarwal is a transfer of suit for partition among 6 children (5 sons and a daughter) of Late. Badri Nath. A number of suits were filed before the Saket Court Delhi and the High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital regarding the partition of the property and some of them were regarding permanent injunction. The main question before the Hon’ble Court was whether to transfer this case to the High Court of Nainital or not?

FACTS

Shri Badri Nath Agarwal died at the age of 91 on 07/05/2011 leaving behind 5 sons and a daughter namely: – Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal, Surender Nath, Narender Nath, Virender Nath Agarwal, Lily Nath (daughter) and Yogender Nath Agarwal. Out of them Shri Narender Nath died on 06/09/2019 leaving behind his wife Smt. Ira Joshi and 2 sons namely Nikhil Nath and Aditya Nath.
Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal cancelled and revoked the previous Will and Testament dated 26/06/2005 and executed the last Will and Testament dated 06/04/2011where a large agricultural land was given to him. He then got the mutation effected in his favor in the revenue records. Lily Nath filed a writ petition regarding the same before High Court of Uttarakhand. Apart from this she also filed a permanent injunction against Rajinder Nath Agarwal.
Following that, the last son, Shri Yogender Nath, filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court’s file, requesting the partition of all the properties that his father, Shri Badri Nath, had left behind. October 2012 saw the filing of the lawsuit. However, in 2016, the complaint was renumbered as C.S. No. 126 of 2016 and moved to the Additional District Judge’s file at Saket Court, New Delhi, most likely following the filing of the written statements.
The first of these transfer petitions, T.P (C) No. 970 of 2016, was submitted by Major Ravinder Nath Agarwal. It asked for the transfer of the partition suit that was pending on the Additional District Judge’s file in Saket, New Delhi, to the Court of District Judge in Nainital, Uttarakhand. On July 8, 2016, this Court granted a stay of further proceedings in the partition suit and ordered notice in the transfer petition.

So, there were 2 transfer petitions filed before the court one from 2016, the eldest son requested that the partition suit be transferred from the District Court in Saket, New Delhi, to the District Court in Nainital, Uttarakhand. In another case from 2019, the plaintiff requested that the testamentary case that was pending on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand be transferred to the District Court in Saket, New Delhi, so that it could be tried alongside her partition suit.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the testamentary case that is pending on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand from 2019 should be transferred to the District Court, Saket, so that it could be tried alongside the partition suit already pending there?
Whether the partition suit that is pending on the file of the District Court at Saket, New Delhi from the year 2016 (instituted in 2012) should be transferred to the District Court, Nainital, Uttarakhand?

CONTENTIONS

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

The petitioner is 68 years old and is suffering from a number of diseases. Moreover, he is undergoing cardiac care treatment with implanted pace maker.
That the subject matter of the suit includes an immovable property situated within the jurisdiction of the competent Court in Nainital.
The 3 respondents are residing out of India and are foreign nationals.
The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that for the petition for transfer, the location, the convenience of the parties, subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts should be taken into consideration.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner in the first transfer petition had abused the court system and that the testamentary procedures had been purposefully started in Uttarakhand seven years after the partition suit was filed in Delhi.

JUDGMENT

The court observed that The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital does not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, though it has jurisdiction to entertain a testamentary case for the grant of probate or letters of administration. As a result, the partition litigation that is currently ongoing in the District Court of Saket may only be transferred to a District Court in Nainital and not to the High Court of Uttarakhand. If a property is worth more than Rs. 10,000, the District Court of Nainital will not have the authority to issue letters of administration or probate for a property that is outside of its boundaries. In contrast, subject to specific limitations and conditions, the Delhi High Court and the Saket District Court are both able to consider requests for the issuance of letters of administration or probate. The competing arguments show that the majority of them are supported by facts. Nonetheless, there is a legal argument put up by the petitioner that merits further examination. The transfer petition of 2016 was dismissed and that of 2019 was transferred to High Court, Delhi. The testamentary action and the partition suit, which are both ongoing at the Additional District Court’s Saket file in Delhi, will be combined and brought before the Delhi High Court for resolution. Further the court said that the parties shall bear their respective costs.

ANALYSIS

The Hon’ble Supreme Court for deciding this case had to look into the territorial jurisdictions of the courts where the matter was to be transferred. Various judgments were referred while giving the decision. Sh. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Counsel cited the decisions of this Court in Ishwardeo Narain Singh vs. Smt. Kamta Devi and Others.1 ; Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka vs. Jasjit Singh and Others2; T. Venkata Narayana and Others vs. Venkata Subbamma (Smt.) (dead) & Others3; Balbir Singh Wasu vs. Lakhbir Singh & Others4, A cumulative reading of Sections 57, 213 and 264 would show:

(i) that unless he has obtained probate (if an executor has been appointed) or letters of administration with the Will annexed, if such a Will has been executed by certain classes of persons, a person claiming to be an executor or legatee under a Will cannot rely upon the Will in any proceeding before a Court of justice; and

(ii) that only courts in the cities of Calcutta, Madras, or Bombay, as well as courts in any locality that the State Government notifies in the Official Gazette, have the authority to give letters of administration or probate.

CONCLUSION

In the Ravinder Nath Agarwal v. Yogender Nath Agarwal [February 12, 2021] the main question was that whether the case should be transferred to District Court, Saket, so that it could be tried alongside the partition suit already pending there or whether the partition suit that is pending on the file of the District Court at Saket, New Delhi from the year 2016 (instituted in 2012) should be moved to the District Court, Nainital, Uttarakhand. The court here observed the territorial jurisdiction of the courts, which was the main contention of the petitioner, and then gave the decision where the suit of 2016 was dismissed but of 2019 was transferred to High Court, Delhi. Also, the testamentary proceeding and the partition suit that are currently pending in the Additional District Court Saket, Delhi, would be transferred to the High Court of Delhi and handled together.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Manherleen Kaur Bhangoo student of G.H.G. Institute of Law, Sidhwan Khurd, Ludhiana, Punjab; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.