In re the Estate of Chinsami Reddy [2000] FJHC 134; HPP35779j.2000s (22 December 2000)

Fiji Islands - In re the Estate of Chinsami Reddy - Pacific Law Materials

ass=MsoNormal align=cenn=center style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI

AT SUVA

PROBATE JURISDICTION

PROBATE NO: 35779

IN THE ESTATE of CHINSAMI REDDY

a.k.a CHINSAMY REDDY a.k.a PACHAPPA REDDY

father’s name Muniappa Reddy

late of Nacovi in the District of Nadi in the Republic of Fiji,

Farmer, deceased Intestate.

Counsel: Mr D. Naidu for Applicant

Mr R. Naidu for Respondent

ass=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Hearing: 5^th December 2000

Judgment: 22^nd December 2000

JUDGMENT

This is an application for letters of administration de bonis non, in respect of the estate onsami Reddy alias Pachappa Reddy. Chinsami Reddy died intesintestate in Nadi, on the 27^th of December 1988, and letters of administration were granted to his wife Alumelu Magamma. Alumelu died on 22^nd April 1998 at Nadi, leaving the whole of the estate of Chinsami Reddy unadministered.

The gross value of the estate has been declared to be $60,000, and the estate comprises of a cane farm at Nadovi, Nadi on Crown Land over an area of 8 acres 3 roods and 3 perches. The persons entitled to share in the estate are the sons and daughters of Chinsami Reddy and Alumelu Reddy, namely Rukhmani Reddy, Shri Raman Reddy, Kamla Ranjigam, Mariamma Reddy, Krishna Reddy and Muttap Reddy. Krishna Reddy is now deceased. Rukhmani Reddy and Welliamma Reddy have purportedly renounced their shares in favour of Shri Raman Reddy and Muttap Reddy.

On 4^th August 1998, letters of administration were applied foMariamma Reddy. Muttap Reddy lodged a caveat. A Warning to Caveator was filed on 18^th

th November 1998. By notice of motion dated 4^th August 1999, Mariamma Reddy applied for the removal of the caveat, and applied for letters of administration de bonis non, on the ground that Muttap Reddy had failed to show his interest in the estate.

An appearance to the warning was filed on 26^th August 1999, the interest of Muttap Reddy declto be that he was “the lawful son of the deceased and one oone of the beneficiaries in the said estate.”

The affidavit of Muttap Reddy was filed on the same day. In that affidavit, Muttap Reddy said that Marihad filed the application for letters of administration witn without the consent of the other beneficiaries. He said that he and his brother Shri Raman Reddy had also applied for letters of administration, and that a grant should be made to them because they were in occupation of the land and have been cultivating it since their father was alive. He said that he had paid the sum of $2606.00 to the Westpac Banking Corporation as payment of arrears of the estate debt to the bank, and the sum of $328.32 as land rent to the Lands Department.

The application for the removal of the caveat ward on 7^th February 2000. It was refused on the ground that Muttap Reddy and Shri Shri Raman Reddy had established a contrary interest in the estate of the deceased.

The question of who was the most suitable person to be granted letters of administration de bonis non, then proceeded to trial on the 28^th of March 2000. There were several long adjournments due substantially to the state of political unrest after May 19^th 2000. The hearing was concluded on 5^th December 2000.

This judgment is in respect of that hearing. The Applicant, Mariamma Reddy called Gopal Narayan, farmer as her first witness. He was a 60 year old member of the Nadi Advisory Council who knew Chinsami Reddy and his family. He said that at the time of Chinsami’s death, his wife, Mariamma, Muttap Reddy and Shri Raman Reddy all lived with him. He said that Muttap Reddy and Shri Raman Reddy had cultivated the land. He said that there was once a dispute between Chinsami and his son, as a result of which Chinsami then gave the land to Krishna Reddy (now deceased), Shri Raman Reddy and Muttap Reddy to cultivate. He said that Chinsami lived alone thereafter, with his wife and his daughter Mariamma, but that Shri Raman and Muttap lived in separate houses on the estate.

Gopal Narayan said that both Muttap and Shri Raman Reddy had fishing businesses and sources of incomer than from the cane farm. He said that Chinsami and his wiis wife were cared for by Mariamma and Welliamma before their deaths.

p class=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> Mariamma Reddy gave evidence that her brothers had helped her father cultivate arm but that the farm was no longer being properly cultivattivated. She said that she lived on the property until her mother died, and that she had been chased off the farm by her brothers. She said that her father and brothers had not got on well and that her brothers were always asking for money. She said that her brothers did not support her parents and that her parents were forced to sell fish to make ends meet. She said that she worked in a garment factory to help her parents to survive. She said that after her brother had chased her out she supported herself by sewing clothes.

Mariamma said that there are four houses on the farm, two of which are rented out. She said that her mother had left a will, leavir share of Chinsami’s estatestate, to Mariamma. Mariamma then obtained probate in her mother’s estate. Mariamma further gave evidence that her brothers had sold soil off the estate to one Steve Marshall and left a hole on the property. She said that this was done without her permission. She said that cane production on the farm had fallen from 93 tonnes in 1992 to 37.26 tonnes in 1999. She said that less than half of the 8 acres on the farm, is cultivated. She said that under the administration of her brothers, the land was being wasted, no accounts had been furnished, and Mariamma was not permitted to return to the property.

Under cross-examination, Mariamma said that she had seen Shri Raman Reddy assaulted heher. She said that she also worked on the farm when she live lived on the estate.

The next witness was Welliamma, Mariamma’s sister. She was shown a document annexed as “C” in the affidavit of Muttap Reddy, pted a renunciation of her sher shares in the estate of Chinsami Reddy, signed on 6^th July 1999. She said she was forced to sign this document by her husband and her brother. She said she wanted her share of the property. She said that soil had been removed from the property creating a hole 10 to 15 feet deep. She said that the best person to administer the estate was her sister Mariamma.

The next witness was Berenavere Sauto, a valuer. He said that s inspected the property at Crown Lease 68738 which covers an area of 8 acres 3 roods and 3and 3 perches. He said that he saw that excavation had been carried on the property over an area of 2700 square metres. The total volume of the excavation was 7950 cubic metres. He said that the soil removed was worth about $15,900.00 at $20.00 per truck load. He said that the top soil had been removed which meant that the area could not be cultivated.

The next witness for the Applicant was Kamla Rangigam a businesswoman, and sister to Mariamma. She also gave evidence of the removal of the soil and said that it had been sold to a European man without the permission of the beneficiaries. No money had been paid to them for the soil. She said that Muttap Reddy had been given a separate piece of land in the 1980's by his father, who had built him a concrete house there. She said that the farm was not being properly administered and that Muttap had sold the farm tractor and had kept the money. She said she was not on good terms with her brothers.

Kamla’s husband Kamal Prakash also gave evidence for the Applicant. He said that the brothers Muttap Reddy and Shri Raman Reddy had not supported their father when he was alive. He said that it was impossible to resolve the impasse between Mariamma and her brothers. He said that soil had been removed from the property and taken to property owned by Muttap.

The Respondent, Muttap Reddy gave evidence on his own behalf. He said that he had built two of the houses on the fnd that he had cultivated tted the farm for many years. He said that Mariamma was a tailor and could not run the farm. He said that he had been on good terms with his parents but that his parents needed to supplement their income by selling fish, when they were alive. He said that one of the houses on the estate was occupied by a Fijian man but that no rent was paid. He said that Mariamma had no house on the farm, and that she used to live with their mother.

Muttap Reddy said that the cane had not been harvested in 1999 or 2000 because Mariamma had stopped the harvest. He said that hisher Shri Raman Reddy removeemoved soil from the property so that he could build a house there. He said that it was sold to Steve, a European man. He said he did not know where he stayed, but that the soil removed was mostly stone.

Muttap Reddy said that the tractor he had sold was his and not his father’s. He said that Mariamma was we on the land, and that two two of his sisters had renounced their shares in his favour. He said that he would properly administer the land if he were granted letters of administration.

Under cross-examination, Muttap Reddy said that his wife ran a shop in Sydney called “Reddy’s Fish Mart”. He said that his children also lived in Sydney. He said that his father had given him land before he died, and that he had sold it to a European man. He said that his brother had sold soil from the farm to the European man. He said he had not sold it himself, and did not know how many loads had been removed.

He agreed that only 37.26 tonnes of cane had been produced in 1999 as red with 93 tonnes in 1995.

p class=MsoNormal stal style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> He said that his brother Shri Raman Reddy had k Gopal Narayan (AW1), had been charged by the police and had been forbidden to re-enter ther the land. He said that he no longer wanted his brother to be a co-administrator of the property. He said that no one was harvesting the cane, that the European man had paid his brother $2000 for the soil, and that the soil had been taken to Muttap’s land. He agreed that the soil had increased the value of the land.

Under re-examination Muttap said that he did want to aster the farm with his brother (also known, apparently as “Dagger Chinna”).

The Respondent’s next witness was Rukhmani Reddy. She is Muttap Reddy’s and Mariamma’s sister. She said she had renounced her sto her father’s estate will willingly and said that Mariamma had gone to Samoa to work. She said that everyone took care of their mother before she died, but that it was Mariamma who had stayed with her. She said that Mariamma left the farm over the dispute with her brothers but that no one had forced her to leave. Rukhmani said that her brothers should administer the estate because men could work on a farm and earn money.

Under cross-examination Rukhmani agreed that it was Mariamma who helped to support their mother. She said that there were fights over the estate. She said that she thought that her brothers could run the estate but that a woman alone could not.

The last witness was Ganga Dharam Reddy, the Justice of the Peace who witnessed both Deeds of Renunciation. He said that Welliamd Rukhmani had signed the Dthe Deeds voluntarily after he had explained the contents to them.

Submissions

&

Counsel made oral submissions. Mr D. Naidu for the Applicant, Mariamma Reddy, said Mariamma had inherited her mother’s half-share of her father’s estate, as well as her own share under intestacy, on the death of her father. He said that Mariamma therefore had a majority share in the estate although two sisters had purportedly renounced their shares. Mr Naidu said that Mariamma should be granted letters of administration as a matter of good practice. He said that RW1 Muttap Reddy was irresponsible and wasteful, and was not suited for the responsibility. He said that if the court was not minded to grant Mariamma letters of administration, then under section 41 of the Succession and Probate and Administration Act, Cap. 60, the estate could be partitioned. He suggested that given the farm’s lack of productivity, the estate should be wound up, and sold on the open market so that the proceeds could be divided amongst the beneficiaries.

Mr R. Naidu submitted that Muttap and Shri Raman Reddy were cultivathe farm. He said that Mariamma worked elsewhere and was not interested in the farm. He saie said no one had chased her out and she could return at any time. He said that Welliamma and Kamla were not credible witnesses.

Mr R. Naidu further submitted that the amount of soil removed was exaggerated and that its removal had improved the He agreed with Mr D. NaiduNaidu’s alternative suggestion that the farm be sold and the proceeds divided amongst the beneficiaries.

The Law

There is no dispute that Mariamma inherited her mother’s share of her father’s estate, and that she also inherited a sixth share of the remaining one-third, share of her father’s estate. This makes her a majority beneficiary.

Nor is it in dispute that Alumelu died leaving part of her husband’s estate unadministered.

The only issue for determination is whether letters of administration de bonis non, should be granted toamma, or to Shri Raman Reddy and Muttap Reddy. In choosing sing the most appropriate person to administer the estate, relevant considerations are the nature of the beneficial interests held by the parties, their good or bad character, any interest they have which might be incompatible with the due administration of the estate and the possibility of appointing strangers to avoid delay and contention. Formerly, males were preferred over females (see Chittendon -v- Knight 1758 2 Lee 559). Fortunately, the law no longer gives effect to such a negative inference about the ability of women to administer an estate, and with the widespread ratification of international human rights instruments such as the United Nations Convention Against the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, this last principle is of no persuasive value at all.

The practice in respect of all such applications, is however to grant the application of the person who has the largeterest, or whom the majoritjority of the other beneficiaries selects.

There is, as I have said, no dispute that Mariamma holds the largest interest, and that with the support of Welliamma and Kamla, she would qualify under this principle. For the reasons I have already referred to, I reject the opinion expressed by Rukhmani, that a woman alone cannot run a cane farm.

Muttap Reddy has allowed soil to be removed fre property. Although he denied knowledge of this transaction initially, he later said that that his brother had sold the soil for $2000, and that the soil had increased the value of Muttap’s own land. He said that his brother should not be an administrator of the estate, given his undesirable character, but later said, in re-examination, that he did want his brother to be a co-administrator. He said that he was interested in cultivating the farm but did not explain why he sold the only tractor which was used on the farm, or why the tonnage produced had fallen so drastically since 1991.

Having heard his evidence, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Muttap Reddy is a most unsuitable person to adminithe estate. Furthermore, She, Shri Raman Reddy who is no longer able to enter the estate because he has stabbed one of the witnesses in this case, can hardly be considered to be a suitable administrator.

Mariamma is clearly a person of good character. She struck me as an intelligent and responsible person, with a competent knowledge o running of the affairs of s of the estate. She holds the majority interest in the estate and clearly expressed her concern at the waste and disorganization in the way in which the farm is currently being run by Muttap Reddy. I consider that she is clearly the most suitable person to be granted letters of administration de bonis non in respect of the estate, and I so order.

Section 41 of Cap 60

Both counsel suggest, with some force, that it is time to wind up the estate. Section 41(1) of the Succession Probate Act Cap 60 provides:

“The court may make such orith reference to any question arising in respect of any wily will or administration, or with reference to the distribution or application of any real or personal estate which an executor or administrator may have in hand, or as to the residue of the estate, as the circumstances of the case may require.”

Clearly the running of the farm, and the way in which each sibling has inherited, has caused dissension and bitterness in the family. Mariamma’s administration of the estate, is not likely to soother her brothers. Affairs may well become more bitter and possibly violent. The evidence is that all siblings live elsewhere (except for Welliamma) and that with the low productivity of the farm, there is no reliance upon its proceeds. It may take years to make the cane more productive and Mariamma herself is evidently in employment as a tailor. I consider that in all the circumstances the estate should now be advertised for sale, that the proceeds be deposited into court and that the proceeds be divided between the beneficiaries in accordance with their beneficial interests, as laid down in the Succession, Probate and Administration Act Cap. 60.

I am satisfied that Rukhmani has renounced her share in the property in favour of her brothers and that she is no longer a beneficiary. However I accept the evidence of Welliamma that she was told by her husband that he would leave her if she did not sign the Deed, and I consider the Deed signed by her to be null and void and of no effect. Rukhmani’s share of the estate must therefore be divided equally between Shri Raman Reddy and Muttap Reddy.

I accept the evidence of Berenaulu Sautu that the value of the soil removed from the property by Shri Raman Reddy was $15,900. I do not believe Muttap Reddy when he said he had no hand in its removal, and I consider that because the soil was received on his land, he must reimburse the estate to this value.

I therefore order the sum of $15,900.00 to be deductom the proceeds of sale due to Muttap Reddy, to be divided amongst the other beneficiaries ries in accordance with the size of their beneficial interests.

Orders

I therefore order that the estate of Chinsami Reddy be advertised for sale by tender forthwith.

I order that the farm be administered by Mariamma Reddy until the sale is effected, and that sheranted limited letters of administration de bonis non untiluntil the farm is sold.

I further order that Mariamma arrange for advertisement and sale of the property, but that the proceeds of sale be deposited court for distribution by t by the Chief Registrar to the beneficiaries after payment of all debts held by the estate. I further order that the sum of $15,900.00 be paid to the estate by Muttap Reddy for the removal of soil to his own land, to this value, or to be deducted from his share of the proceeds of sale.

I further order that the share of the estate previously held by Rukhmani, be divided equally between Muttap Reddy and Shri Raman Reddy.

Costs must be paid by the Respondents to the Applicant in the sum of $500.

Nazhat Shameem

JUDGE

At Suva

22^nd December

HPP35779J.00S