The validity of the provisions of a will cannot be agitated in the proceeding for revocation of Letters of Administration. The appropriate course for enforcing property rights is to file a suit.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the dismissal of an application for revocation of Letters of administration with the will of one Kadambi (as he has been called in the proceedings) annexed and granted to Respondents. The Petitioner is the brother of the testator's son-in-law. Respondent 1 is the brother of his wife ar. d the father of the 2nd Respondent. Respondent 3 is the daughter of the testator's brother. The Letters of Administration were granted in December, 1944 and the application for revocation of these was filed in February 1952. The two grounds mainly urged in support of the application are that the properties purported to be disposed of by the will did not belong to the testator and that he was not of a sound disposing mind at the time of the alleged execution of the will. Both these were negatived by the lower court.

( 2 ) ALTHOUGH evidence has been let in to show that at least some of the properties disposed of by the will did not belong to the testator, it is, we think, unnecessary to Investigate the ownership and devolution of these in these proceedings for revocation of Letters of Administration as what the Court is mainly concerned with is whether the will was duly executed and whether it is of a testamentary character. The validity or otherwise of the provisions of the will cannot be agitated here by the appellant who has set up claims to property independently of the will and adversely to the testator. (See Mst. Laso Devi v. Mst. Jagtambha, AIR 1936 Lah 378 (A), and B, G. Tilak v. Sakwarbai. ILR 26 Bom 792 (B ).) In Arunmoyi Dasi v. Mo-hendra Nath Wadadar, ILR, 20 Cal 888 (C), a suit filed by a person to establish right to property was held to be maintainable though the right was not recognised in the proceedings for grant of letters of administration. That was a case in which the Allahabad High Court granted letters of administration with the will of one narendra-nath annexed to his brothers though it was opposed by his widow on the ground that the applicants were the residuary legatees and entitled as such to represent the deceased. The learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court observed :

"no doubt the Allahabad High Court in determining the question whether the defendants were entitled to letters of administration, as prayed for, had to construe the will, and to consider whether upon a proper construction of that document, the defendants were residuary legatees; but this was only for the purpose of determining the question of "representative title". The question of the construction of the will was but an incidential question which the Court had to consider in determining whether the defendants were entitled to letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased. "and at page 894

"it has been held that in a proceeding upon an application for probate of a will, the only question which the Court is called upon to determine is whether the will is true or not, and that it is not the province of the Court to determine any question of title with reference to the property covered by the will (see Behary Lall Sandy id v. Juggo Mohun Gossain, ILR 4 Cal 1 (D) ' ). And it is noteworthy that a proceeding under the Probate and Administration Act is not a suit properly so called, but takes the form of a suit according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (See Section 83 ). That being so, we do not see how the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court could toe regarded as concluding the plaintiff as to the title to the estate either under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, or under the general principles of res judicata".

Our attention has not been drawn to any case in which a Probate Court was called upon to decide disputes of title to property or its decision was treated as conclusive between the parties. The appropriate course for the appellant to enforce his rights to the property is to file a suit.

( 3 ) THE other contention relates to the want of a sound disposing state of mind in the test

Click Here to Read the rest of this document