Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, exercising its testamentary jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, allowed an application for substitution of the executor of a will on grounds of ill-health and inability to perform executorial duties. Justice Kamal Khata held that where the sole beneficiary of an estate also happens to be its executor, the High Court may, in its discretion, appoint another executor to give effect to the testator’s wishes. The Court observed that “there is no impediment in granting the relief sought, particularly since no other person has any locus or can have any objection — the matter concerns only the applicant’s own interest and effectuates the testator’s intent.”
Facts
The deceased executed a Will dated 2 October 1984, appointing his wife, his son, and a chartered accountant as executors, with authority to appoint substitutes if any executor retired, died, or declined office. The deceased died in 1999, leaving behind his wife and son. After his wife’s death in 2000 and the subsequent death of the co-executor in 2011, the son became the sole surviving executor and sole beneficiary of the estate valued at approximately ₹44 crores, consisting of properties at Sewree, Khandala, and Kolkata.
He obtained probate of the will in 2013. In 2025, upon amendment of the property schedule, an amended probate was issued. Subsequently, due to dilated cardiomyopathy and cervical myelopathy, the executor became incapable of personally managing or transferring the estate’s assets. Consequently, he filed an application under Section 301 seeking appointment of his daughter-in-law as the new executor, who furnished written consent to accept executorship.
Issues
- Whether the High Court has discretionary power under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to remove or substitute an executor due to ill-health and incapacity.
- Whether such substitution can be permitted when the applicant himself is both the executor and sole beneficiary of the estate.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the applicant contended that the High Court is empowered under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act to remove an executor and appoint another in his stead, particularly where incapacity prevents discharge of executorial duties. The applicant’s illness made it impossible for him to travel to the various locations where estate properties were situated, thereby frustrating the testator’s intent. Since he was the only heir and beneficiary, no other person’s interests were affected. The counsel further relied on judicial precedents holding that ill-health or inability to discharge duties constitutes sufficient cause for substitution of an executor.
Respondent’s Arguments
There were no contesting respondents, as no other person had locus standi in the matter. The estate belonged entirely to the applicant as the sole heir and beneficiary of both parents. The matter thus involved no conflicting interests or rival claims.
Analysis of the Law
Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act confers a discretionary power upon the High Court to remove an executor and appoint another where circumstances warrant such substitution. The provision uses the expression “may,” indicating that the power is not mandatory but discretionary, enabling the Court to decide in accordance with the facts of each case.
The Court observed that when the executor and beneficiary are one and the same person, and incapacity prevents administration, substitution is not only permissible but also necessary to ensure effective execution of the testator’s will. In such cases, no prejudice is caused to third parties, as the estate and its management remain within the family or beneficiary’s control.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to three significant decisions:
- Abha Dastane Rao & Ors. v. Prabhakar Devlamkar & Ors., (2016) SCC OnLine Bom 110 — The Bombay High Court held that “inability to discharge executorial duties on account of ill-health constitutes a sufficient ground for removal or substitution of an executor.” The use of the term “may” under Section 301 signifies discretionary authority vested in the Court.
- Swapnil Gupta v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2022) SCC OnLine Del 4580 — The Delhi High Court reiterated that when an executor is incapacitated or unable to administer the estate, the court can substitute or appoint a new executor to ensure the smooth administration of the estate.
- Marten Borchert v. Arzan Khambatta, (2011) 5 MhLJ 682 — The Bombay High Court emphasized that where the administration of the estate is hindered by an executor’s inability or disinterest, substitution may be ordered to safeguard the estate’s proper management.
Justice Kamal Khata observed that the principles laid down in these cases “squarely apply to the present case,” affirming that physical incapacity is a valid reason to seek substitution.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the application was straightforward, non-contentious, and within the discretion conferred by Section 301. Since the applicant was both sole beneficiary and executor, his application was essentially to facilitate administration of his own estate, causing no prejudice to any other party. The Court noted that the testator’s intent would otherwise remain unfulfilled if estate transfers and administrative acts could not be performed due to the executor’s ill-health.
The proposed substitute, the applicant’s daughter-in-law, had given her written consent to assume the executorship, thereby ensuring continuity of administration. The Court thus saw “no reason to withhold the relief sought.”
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court allowed the Interim Application, granting prayers (a) and (b), thereby substituting the executor of the deceased’s will in accordance with Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court concluded that:
“There is no impediment in granting the relief sought, particularly since no other person has any locus or can have any objection — the matter concerns only the applicant’s own interest and effectuates the testator’s intent.”
Implications
This judgment reinforces that under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, the High Court possesses broad discretion to substitute executors in appropriate cases. It emphasizes a practical and purposive approach—where the executor’s ill-health impedes administration, the court should intervene to ensure the testator’s wishes are fulfilled. The ruling also underscores that absence of prejudice to third parties simplifies the exercise of such discretion. The decision provides valuable clarity for estate administration in India, particularly where elderly executors seek substitution due to declining health.