JUDGMENT - A.A. CAZI, J.:---This petition is for (a) setting aside the order dated 30th November, 1989 disposing with the service of citations and revoking the grant of Letters of Administration issued to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 pursuant to the said order, (aa) removing or discharging respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as a administrators of the estate of late Rachel Ryams and appointing the petitioner in their place as administrator and (b) suitable orders/directions regarding accounts, disclosures, etc. for ascertaining the damages for loss caused to the estate by respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows:

(a) The matter concerns the estate of one Rachel Ryams, who died on 15th October, 1978. The petitioner (Jonathan) is the brother of Rachel. Respondent No. 1 (Zillah) is the niece of Rachel being the daughter of Daisy, who is the sister of Rachel. Respondents Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 (Emannuel, Asher, Diana, Daisy, Elsie and Sophie) are brothers and sisters of the said Rachel. Respondent No. 3 (Gene) is Rachel's niece being the daughter of Issac, who was Rachel's brother. Respondent No. 6 (Samson) is Rachel's nephew being the son of Robin or Ruby, who was the sister of Rachel. In the petition it is stated that Samson is the brother of Rachel, but at the stage of arguments it was conceded that this statement in the petition was not correct and that Samson is not a brother but a nephew of Rachel.

(b) On 31st July, 1990 Zillah filed Petition No. 648 of 1980 for Letters of Administration with Will annexed of the deceased Rachel. Citations were issued. The sufficiency or the legality of those citations is in dispute. It is however undisputed that Jonathan was served with citation. Caveats were filed by Emannuel and Issac. On 22nd December, 1981 the caveats were withdrawn and there was an order passed by Rele, J. The Minutes of the order read as follows: "Order in terms of the consent Terms signed by the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and their counsel and handed in and marked 'X'. On 1st September, 1989 the present petition was filed.

At the time of filing of the present petition reliefs in terms of the present prayer (a) had not been sought. At that time the present prayer (aa) stood as prayer (a). At that time the Letters of Administration had not been issued. On 30th November, 1989 Suresh, J., passed order which reads "Service of citations who have appeared earlier in this matter is dispensed with. Office to proceed further." On 5th December, 1989 the Letters of Administration were issued. Thereafter the present petition was amended by adding the present prayer (a) and renumbering the then prayer (a) as prayer (aa). It may be stated that, before the present petition was amended as stated above, Jonathan had taken out a separate Notice of Motion wherein the relief as asked for in the present prayer (a) had been sought. There was an objection to the format for asking that relief by way of Notice of Motion and there was also an objection that the present petition was itself premature inasmuch as it had been filed before the grant of the Letters of Administration. Both these objections stood waived as Jonathan carried out the amendments as stated above.

3. According to Jonathan, the facts are as follows : Rachel was owner of three immovable properties viz., (i) House No. 91 at Bandra, (ii) House No. 68 at Bandra and (iii) 1/3rd undivided share in House No. 87 at Bandra. Rachel's Will refers to houses only and not to adjoining land. The Will prohibits sale of houses in clear term. In Zillah's Petition No. 648 of 1980 (converted into suit bearing Suit No. 8 of 1981) there is no reference to House No. 87. Citations were served on some heirs. Zillah and Emannuel misled the Court to pass the consent order dated 22nd December, 1981, Zillah and Emannuel purported to convey House Nos. 91 and 68 to each other. Zillah and Emannuel have not compiled with office requisitions nor they have taken any steps to co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document