The court held that fraudulent concealment of material facts by original petitioners justified the revocation of Letters of Administration under Section 263(b) of the Indian Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

The petitioner in this miscellaneous petition has invoked Section 263 (b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the "Succession Act"), for seeking revocation of Letters of Administration granted by this Court on 08th September, 1993 in favour of the respondent and his deceased mother. The basis for invoking Section 263(b) of the Succession Act and claiming that the Letters of Administration were obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion and concealing material particulars from this Court, is an assertion on the part of the petitioner that the original petitioners in the testamentary petition for grant of Letters of Administration i.e. the respondent herein and his mother had falsely stated that the deceased, being the father of the respondent herein, had not left behind any daughters. It is the specific claim of the petitioner that she was an adopted child / daughter of the deceased Lalchand Goyal and that therefore, she ought to be have been cited in the testamentary petition and citation ought to have been duly served upon her before this Court considered granting the Letters of Administration.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that sometime in August, 2015, when she visited her maternal house on account of illness of the mother i.e. the original respondent No.1 and while going through a drawer for ascertaining the medical needs of the deceased respondent No.1, that the petitioner came across an undated letter addressed by the respondents in the present petition i.e. the deceased mother and brother Rajeev Lalchand Goyal to the Estate Manager of Mumbai Port Trust, wherein reference was made to the aforesaid Letters of Administration dated 08th September, 1993, granted by this Court. According to the petitioner, she made necessary enquiries and she filed third party application for grant of certified copies of the papers pertaining to original Testamentary Petition No. 530 of 1992. Thereupon, on 26th April 2016, the petitioner filed the present miscellaneous petition for revocation of grant. According to the petitioner, since the aforesaid fraud committed by the original petitioners in the testamentary petition came to her knowledge in August, 2015, by application under Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Article 137 thereof, the miscellaneous petition was filed within the period of limitation.

3. The original respondent No.1 i.e. the deceased mother filed reply affidavit in the present miscellaneous petition, denying the claims made by the petitioner. It is submitted that while the said respondent and the original deceased person i.e. Lalchand Goyal were childless, they had duly adopted the respondent herein i.e. Rajeev Lalchand Goyal as their son, while the petitioner was not adopted and that she could not make any claim of being the adopted daughter of the deceased. Along with the reply affidavit certain documents were filed, including copies of Partnership Deeds to indicate that the petitioner was never given share or status of partner in the Partnership Deeds by virtue of being the adopted daughter of the deceased Lalchand Goyal and that therefore, the claims made in the miscellaneous petition regarding fraud allegedly committed by the original petitioners in the testamentary petition was without any substance, apart from the fact that the miscellaneous petition was barred by limitation.

4. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit to place on record documents to show that in judicial proceedings the respondent Rajeev Lalchand Goyal had filed affidavit, stating that the petitioner was indeed the married daughter of the deceased Lalchand Goyal and that this was a clinching admission to demonstrate the fraud committed by the original testamentary petitioners while filing the testamentary petition for grant of Letters of Administration.

5. Before referring to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, it would be appropriate