Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ker) 788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K.Narendran, P.G. Ajithkumar, JJ.
Raymond Francis and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Raymond, S/O Jacob And Ors. – Respondents
F.A.O.NO. 230 OF 2008
Decided On : 18-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: V.V.Asokan (Sr.), G.Unnikrishnan, T.K.Sreekala, Uthara Asokan, K.Saneesh Kumar
For the Respondent: Smitha Chathanarambath, Gangesh K.B, C.P.Peethambaran, M.K. Shaji

Revocation of Letters of Administration

Headnote:
Revocation of Letters of Administration - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 263 - The court analyzed the provisions of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, which allows for the revocation of letters of administration for just cause. The court considered the various grounds for revocation listed in the section and their interpretation in case law. The court also discussed the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure and the principles of res judicata to the revocation of letters of administration. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 263 and the principles established in previous judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent filed a petition seeking revocation of letters of administration granted to the 2nd respondent based on a new Will. The court below held that the petition was not barred by limitation and that the letters of administration were liable to be revoked. The appellants, who purchased properties from the 2nd respondent, appealed against this decision. The court held that the revocation of the letters of administration did not invalidate the sale deeds executed in favor of the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the principles of res judicata. It also considered the evidence presented by the parties, including oral testimony and expert reports. The court relied on precedents to establish the presumption of correctness of registered documents and the validity of transactions executed by a legatee under a probated Will.
Ratio Decidendi: The revocation of letters of administration does not invalidate transactions executed by a legatee under a probated Will, provided the transferee is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. The title obtained by the appellants through the sale deeds is unaffected by the revocation of the letters of administration.
Result: The order revoking the letters of administration is confirmed, but it is declared that the revocation does not invalidate the sale deeds executed in favor of the appellants.

JUDGMENT :

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The 1st respondent filed I.A.No.963 of 2002 in O.P.(LA) No.12 of 1995 before the District Court, Thrissur invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking revocation of letters of administration granted in favour of the 2nd respondent annexed with a copy of the Will dated 28.12.1989. That petition was allowed as per the order dated 16.06.2008. The appellants, who are respondents No.8 and 9 in I.A.No.963 of 2003 have filed this appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act.

2. This appeal was admitted on 05.09.2008. The 2nd respondent in the appeal expired and his legal representatives were brought on record as additional respondent Nos.8 to 10. Additional respondent No.10 expired and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondent Nos.11 to 13.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

4. Sri. Joseph, son of Chakkaramakkal Chathunny expired on 07.08.1994. One of his children Sri.Jacob filed O.P. (LA) No.12 of 1995 claiming that Sri.Joseph executed Will No.65 of 1989 dated 28.12.1989 of Chavakkad Sub Registrar’s Office and that was his last Will. The respondents therein remained ex parte. That original petition was allowed as per the order dated 25.05.1996. Sri.Jacob was the administrator. He discharged all the liabilities under the Will. He subsequently conveyed 32.09 cents of the property comprised in re-survey No.98/6 of Chavakkad Village from A-schedule item No.2 in the Will in favour of the 1st appellant by virtue of Ext.B2 which is sale deed dated 06.05.1998. Sri.Jacob executed on 05.07.2000 Ext.B27 sale deed conveying 84 cents of land from the aforementioned A-schedule item No.2 in the Will in favour of the 2nd appellant. Subsequently, the 1st respondent, who is the son of Sri.Jacob (grandson of the testator Sri. Joseph) filed I.A.No.963 of 2002 claiming that Sri. Joseph executed another Will as document No.64 of 1990 on 18.06.1990, Ext.A7, which was registered in Mundoor Sub Registrar’s Office. The 1st respondent sought a relief of revocation of the letters of administration issued in favour of Sri.Jacob on the grounds that the said letters of administration was obtained by concealing facts and without furnishing essential facts thereby amounting to fraud.

5. The 2nd respondent Jacob resisted I.A.No.963 of 2002 by filing a counter. He denied the genuineness of Will No.64 of 1990 dated 18.06.1990 propounded by the 1st respondent as the last Will of Sri. Joseph. According to Sri.Jacob, Will No.65 of 1989 was the last Will executed by Sri. Joseph.

6. The appellants filed separate counter-statements wherein they reiterated the contentions of Sri.Jacob. Both of them further contended that they were bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration, and when the letters of administration which was duly issued by the District Court, Thrissur was live and remained binding all concerned they purchased the property from Sri. Jacob. They, thereby claimed that their title to the properties they purchased by virtue of Exts.B2 and B27 does not suffer from any infirmity. They would contend that the impugned order dated 16.06.2008 in I. A No.963 of 2002 is liable to be set aside.

7. Before the District Court, Thrissur, the 1st respondent adduced oral evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and produced Exts. A1 to A10. He brought on record Exts.X1 to X7 also. On the side of the respondents in I. A No.963 of 2002 Exts.B1 to B27 were marked. The 2nd respondent Sri. Jacob tendered oral evidence as RW1. Rws.2 to 4 were also examined. The learned District Judge considered three points namely, was the petition barred by the law of limitation, was the petition barred by res judicata, and whether letters of administration issued in favour of the 2nd respondent was liable to be revoked.

8. The learned District Judge held that the period