MAHARANIDHIRANI KAMSUNDARI Vs. LAKSHMI KANTA JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for removal of an executor and for certain directions under Ss. 301 and 302 of the Indian Succession Act. The Petitioner is the youngest wife of the late Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwara Singh Bahadur of Barbhariga who died on October 1, 1962, without any children leaving a Will dated July 5, 1961. Under the said Will, the Respondent was appointed the sole executor. The probate was duly granted by this Hon'ble Court on September 26, 1963. The relevant provisions of the said Will are set out below:

(2.) The Sch. A and Sch. B to the Will relate to the residential house at Rambag and the palace known as Nargauna palace respectively. The Petitioner has admitted that the Respondent has been paying to her a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month since the Respondent took charge of the estate. The Respondent in his reply dated January 13, 1966, (annex. B to the petition) has, inter alia, stated:

(3.) The Petitioner has contended that the Respondent's statements in the said letter amount to an assent by the executor to her legacy. The Petitioner's main grievance is that, although the Respondent has assented to the said bequests and although the estate is large enough to meet all the legacies, the Respondent has not made over any of them either to the elder Maharani or to the Petitioner in spite of requests. She has alleged that even with respect to the monthly payment of the said sum of Rs. 5,000, the Respondent has threatened to stop the payment if the Petitioner chooses to take any steps with regard to her rights under the Will. Correspondence started between the parties on the handing over of the legacies to the Petitioner. But, she was told that the Respondent was not bound to make over the bequests to the Petitioner before the completion of the administration. According to her, there is unusual delay in completing the administration and the Respondent should not be allowed to administer the estate. It has also been alleged in the petition that the Respondent has been grossly negligent and is guilty of serious dereliction of duty. The Petitioner has set out in para. 27 of the petition particulars showing harassment, defaults, negligence and maladministration on the part of the Respondent which I shall deal with in details later. The Petitioner has complained that as a result of the Respondent's conduct the Petitioner is also not in a financial position to protect and recover her rights under the Will. The Petitioner on the basis of the said allegations has prayed for the following relief 's: