PRIYAMBADA DEBI BIRLA Vs. AJOY KUMAR NEWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court: First mentioned application being G.A. No. 4375 of 2004 has been taken out by one Radha Debi Mohatta being the defendant No. 2 while application being G.A. No. 4376 of 2004 was originally taken out by one Laxmi Debi Newar since deceased being the original defendant No.l. On her death inteastacy, one Ajoy Kumar Newar, one Arabinda Kumar Newar, one Nanda Gopal Khaitan and one Debendra Kumar Mahatri Defendant No.l(a), Defendant No. l(b). Defendant No. l(c) and Defendant No. l(d) respectively were substituted in her place and stead. These two applications have been taken out by the aforesaid defendants for identical reliefs for-appointment of an Administrator and/ or a Committee headed by an independent and impartial Administrator to take over all movable and immovable assets and properties of the deceased, Smt, Priyamibada Debi Birla including the voting rights and the right of control of the deceased in respect of the companies specified in schedule being annexure 'J' to the petition; Administrator and/or Committee to be appointed herein to take over the management affairs and control of the M.P. Birla Group of Companies set out in schedule being annexure 'J' and the shareholding of the companies specified in schedule being annexure 'AA' including voting right; the said Administrator be directed to act as an Administrator, pendente lite, until disposal of the testamentary proceedings; the said person or persons be directed to take all decisions with regard to exercise of all rights in regard to shareholding of Smt. Priyambada Debi Birla in any company including the rights of control of other companies vested in Smt. Priyambada Debi Birla; injunction restraining the said R.S. Lodha and his men agents and/or assigns from dealing with, disposing of or encumbering any of the assets and properties of the deceased and/or exercising any right to control any company specified in schedule annexure 'J' hereto. Jn the same testamentary suit and in connection with aforesaid two applications the propounder/executor has taken out two seperate applications. One application has been taken out being G.A. No. 4474 of 2004 for dismissal of the application taken out by one of the defendants being G.A. No. 4375 of 2004. Similarly, another application has been taken out by the propounder being G.A. No. 4475 of 2004 for identical reliefs viz. for dismissal of the application taken out by another defendant being G.A. 4376 of 2004. It seems to me that the applications taken out by the propounder are counter blast to the aforesaid two appliications filed by the caveatrix (defendants) for appointment of the Administrator. Going by the prayer portions of the applications made by the caveatrix 1 think prayer for appointment of the Administrator in terms of Prayer 'B' cannot be considered for if granted, that amount, to taking over of management & control of separate juristic bodies by the Probate Court as it has no jurisdiction to do. However, the prayer for Administrator pendente lite, in terms of prayer (a) (hereinafter in short APL) can be considered.

(2.) In the body of both the petitions and affidavit in reply of the caveatrix/defendants the statements and averments purporting to constitute the grounds for appointment of APL are almost identically same. The said grounds shorn of mutual rival personal allegations of the parties, are summarized hereunder.

(3.) The purported Will propounded by the Executor R.S. Lodha is a manufactured and procured document. Similarly, the codicil relied on and propounded by the executor is also manufactured and procured. The genuineness of the aforesaid two testamentary documents has been seriously challenged as it appears that disposition made therein is wholly unnatural and there is no reason to exclude any relation amongst the members of the Birla family and to give away all her properties to the paid employee and/or accountant viz. the executor. me lady, tor the last five years before execution of the purported documents, was not at all in a good health or condition. She had been suffering from various ailments, which include acute renal problems, tuberculosis and other diseases. She had underwent kidney transplantation, she used to move on by wheelchair and almost periodically used to go to London for treatment. The said lady was completely in the clutch and influence of the executor. Besides, the lady on 13th July, 1982 executed a mutual Will along with her husband whereby and whereunder some other persons who have already lodged caveat in order to contest grant of probate of Will and testament dated 18th April, 1999 and codicil dated 15th April, 2003 have been appointed executors and trustees. In terms of the mutual Will the lady did not have any right or capacity to execute or publish any document subsequently after death of her husband. It appears from the mutual Will of the said lady and her husband executed in 1982 that all the properties have been given to the trust for the benefit of the public at large. It is surprising that the benevolent disposition of the lady completely disappeared from the purported last Will unlike previous one, and the entire vast properties, both movable and immovable, have been given away to the said Lodha appointing him sole executor of the said last Will. In view of the execution of two mutual Wills dated 13th July, 1982 a separate suit for specific performance has been filed and the same is pending. The executors appointed by the said lady and her husband by the Will in 1982 had already applied for grant of Probate of the said Will and the same is pending. In this proceeding the executor Lodha has deliberately suppressed the real value of the assets and properties left by the said deceased in the affidavit. He has deliberately showed the value of the estate left behind by the said lady valuing her estate to Rs. 3 crore and odd. In the rough estimation the value of the estate and properties left behind by the said childless couple would be nearly Rs. 2500 crore.