Bench:
R S Dhavan
Issue:
Whether the property in dispute was demanded by the mother of the deceased due to undue influence?
Facts:
• It is an ugly court matter of dispute in property and two questions have arose before the court, both relating to the estate of late Mahindra Pratap Singh.
• His brother Narendra, applied for letters of administration, thus notice and orders were made.
• Consequently, one year and three months later, Padma Kumari applied for administration of same property.
• Narendra was seeking administration based on will dated 25thNovember, 1985; on the other hand, Padma Kumari was the mother of the deceased who was asking for administration on the ground of a will dated 7th August as well as 25th November 1985 which was the same day as the appellant.
• Hence, notices were also issued for Padma Kumari.
• Narendra's suit was dismissed due to his want of prosecution;thus, he moved an application for restoration of the suit.
• All pleadings filed by Padma Kumari happened at Dehradun or Allahabad and always through a person claiming to have the power of attorney of her.
• Commission was appointed to examine the mother who did not attend the court proceedings.
Appellant's contentions:
• Narendra contended that, between himself and his lawyer, there was a lack of communication, due to which his counsel was without any instructions from his side.
• He was a pilot in the Air Force at his posting in Dehradun until his retirement in 1983, due to which he couldn't appeal for his application before.
• He stated that his mother was in the bond of Ajit Panwar (his sister's daughter's husband)who has been abusing her since she is 87 years old and not in an independent mental stateand that is why she is asking for the property.
• On the other hand, he contended that there are no issues between himself and his mother and such property disputes cannot be conducted through a power of attorney.
• Issue is being diverted on consideration of his application and main points of the case are not taken into account, hence power of attorney should be kept away from the proceedings.
Respondent's contentions:
• Petition was filed by the mother that the deceased had left no will.
• An injunction should be passed against Narendra and his sister to prevent them from meeting the mother so as to not undue influence her.
• The mother is acting out of her own freewill and consent, and she couldn't come to the proceedings just because she was tired from old age.
• Thus, appeal of application of Narendra for suit of prosecution should be rejected.
Final judgement:
• Ajit Panwar is required to furnish security for payment of costs as he wrongly acted as the Power of Attorney of the old lady who couldn't give consent.
• Application seeking recall of suit of prosecution is allowed.
