The court is fully empowered to carry out complete distribution of the estate on its own once the matter is properly before it in a partition, succession, administration, or final decree proceeding. This includes determining the respective shares of all heirs, ordering reimbursement or adjustment of expenses incurred for the estate, directing that the minors’ shares be deposited in fixed deposits until they attain majority, and releasing the adult heir’s share directly. This exercise is typically undertaken at the stage of passing a final decree after shares have been declared. The court does not require consensus or settlement among the parties to do so, provided the claims are supported by evidence and law. Objections, if raised, will be adjudicated judicially, but the absence of settlement does not restrict the court’s authority to complete distribution.
With respect to reimbursement of expenses under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court does have jurisdiction to adjust equities between co-sharers at the final decree stage. Reimbursement claims for funeral expenses, litigation expenses, loans raised for family or estate obligations, and expenses incurred to protect or preserve the estate are maintainable. Given the passage of time, the court does not insist on item-wise original bills in every case, particularly where such bills are no longer available or where expenses were inherently non-billable. The court can rely on a sworn affidavit explaining the nature and necessity of the expenses, loan documents or bank records evidencing borrowing and repayment, and an advocate’s certificate confirming legal expenses. Neither a will nor the consent or signature of the opposing heir is required for the court to adjudicate such claims. Even loans that were general in nature can be considered, provided it is shown that they were utilised for family or estate-related purposes. That said, the court retains discretion to scrutinise the claim and may allow reimbursement fully or proportionately, depending on its assessment of necessity and reasonableness.
As regards removal of a guardian and appointment of the grandmother as guardian in her place, the law is well settled that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration. Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 are not bound by the mere fact of biological parentage if the conduct of the natural guardian is shown to be harmful, unstable, or dangerous to the minor’s well-being. Recordings containing death threats, suicide threats, statements expressing a desire for the death of a family member, or messages glorifying spousal killing are extremely serious in nature. Such material, when properly proved with a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and supported by affidavits or surrounding circumstances, can be relied upon by the court to conclude that the environment created by the guardian is psychologically unsafe for the minors. On that basis, the court is competent to remove the existing guardian for custody and/or property matters and appoint the grandmother as guardian, including restraining the removed guardian from operating or controlling the minors’ financial interests.
Proceeding exclusively through the court route without settlement is legally permissible and defensible. It provides institutional protection, particularly for minors and their property, and avoids financial coercion or compromise under pressure. However, it is inherently adversarial and time-consuming. The court will examine evidence closely, permit objections, and exercise discretion, especially in relation to reimbursement amounts and guardianship issues. Nonetheless, none of the reliefs you seek are dependent on consent, negotiation, or settlement with the opposing party.
In conclusion, your strategy of seeking judicial determination alone is legally viable. The court can order full distribution, adjudicate reimbursement claims without item-wise bills or opposing consent, and remove an unfit guardian on the basis of credible electronic evidence. Success will depend not on settlement, but on structured pleadings, proper sequencing of applications, and procedural compliance in proving documents and recordings.
