1. The Petitioner No.1 is the father of Petitioner No.2. He is the brother of one Ursula Dara Mistry, the Testatrix who executed a Will dated 7th February 2004 and Codicil dated 29th November 2004 which have been probated. Respondents 1 and 2 are the executors under the said Will and the Codicil of the Testatrix. The Respondents have administered a large part of the estate of the testatrix as per the mandate contained in her Will.

2. The Petition is filed for removal of the Respondents as the executors and appointment of other executors in their place. The Petition is, therefore, essentially filed under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act. The Petition is also filed for directing inventory of the estate of the Testatrix, information of the steps in administration, handing over of certain property being the Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) bonds, implementation of the Will, appointment of receiver and appointment of Petitioner No.1 as the sole trustee of the trust directed to be formed by the Testatrix within a time frame.

3. It may at once be mentioned that the prayer relating to removal of Respondents and appointment of others in their place as executors is diametrically different from and contradictory to the prayers for giving an inventory, information, handing over of specified movable properties being REC bonds and implementation of the Will within a time frame. Either of these reliefs may, therefore, be granted.

4. It may also be mentioned that the Petitioners have been unusually hasty as well as enthusiastic in the administration of the estate of the Testatrix, The Petitioners have corresponded with the executors after the Testamentary Petition for grant of probate came to be filed and before the probate was granted by the Court. This correspondence has largely been in respect of two immovable properties of the Testatrix in respect of which a trust has been directed to be formed with certain other trustees and Petitioner No.2 as the beneficiary. The despatch exhibited by the Petitioners in the administration of the estate is not strictly as per the mandate contained in the Will of the Testatrix, but as desired by them which is contrary to the intention of the Testatrix that the Will reflects.

5. A short chronology of events would show what the Petitioners have desired and how the Respondents have acted. The Will was executed on 7th February 2004. A Codicil has been executed on 29th November 2004. The Testatrix expired on 21st June 2007. A petition for probate came to be filed on 7th February 2008. Letters of Advocates on behalf of the Petitioners came to be addressed initially to the Respondents and later to their Advocate by 15th September 2009 and 9th October 2009 when the petition for probate was pending in this Court calling upon the Respondents to hand over possession of the disputed part of the estate of the Testatrix. Probate came to be granted on 21st November 2009. A copy of the probate was supplied to the Petitioner on 22nd December 2009.

6. The Respondents would be required to commence the work of administration of the estate of the Testatrix only on and from 21st November 2009 under the provisions of Section 317 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Respondents would require to make an inventory of the estate of the Testatrix within six months of the grant or further time as allowed by the Court. The Respondents would require to render accounts of the property and credits of the Testatrix within one year therefrom. The Respondents would enjoy a statutory period of one year or further time as allowed by the Court from the date of the grant to administer the estate, the undertaking of which is incorporated into the grant itself. Accordingly, the administration, as per the circumstances of the case, may be allowed to continue by the Court even after the aforesaid statutory period.

7. It must be appreciated that each Will requires a different reasonable period within which to fully admin