Mother’s House Bequest Vested In Son Before His Death; Gujarat HC Upholds Letters Of Administration To His Heirs

Narmadaben Jagjivandas Tanna executed a Will in 1994 bequeathing her self-acquired house to her son, Atulbhai, subject to restrictions on sale and mortgage for 15 years.

After Narmadaben’s death in 1999, Atulbhai applied under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for letters of administration. He died while the application was pending, and his legal heirs were brought on record. The trial court granted letters of administration to the heirs; the first appellate court affirmed. The defendant’s appeal challenged the continuation of the proceeding after Atulbhai’s death.

Section 104 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, provides that a legatee has a vested interest in a general legacy from the testator’s death and, if the legatee dies without receiving it, the legacy passes to the legatee’s representatives.

In Shambhu Prasad Agarwal v. Bhola Ram Agarwal, (2000) 9 SCC 714, the Supreme Court held that a legatee’s heirs may be substituted in proceedings for probate or letters of administration; the personal-right principle applicable to an executor does not bar substitution of a legatee’s heirs.

The Court also referred to Ravindra Khushaldas Mehta v. Legal Representatives of Deceased Smt. Indumati Rameshchandra Pandit, AIR 2023 Guj 167, concerning the ability of a legatee’s legal representative to maintain such proceedings.

The Court found that the Will’s restrictions on sale and mortgage did not prevent the house from vesting in Atulbhai upon the testator’s death; in any event, he died more than 15 years after the testator.

Applying Section 104 and Shambhu Prasad Agarwal, the Court concluded that the vested legacy passed to Atulbhai’s representatives and that the proceeding did not abate on his death.

It held that the authorities cited by the appellant were inapplicable in light of the Supreme Court’s binding decision.

Finding no substantial question of law, the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine, confirmed the decisions below, and disposed of the stay application as no longer surviving; no order as to costs was made.