One Lina Dalrimple Hay, a British national died in England on 30th December, 1950. She left behind her her last Will and testament dated 24th June, 1944. In and by the said Will the testatrix appointed her two nieces, Miss E.J.E. Butcher and Miss B. Butcher, both residents of London, to be the executrices thereof. Probate of the said Will was duly obtained by the said executrices from the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice in England on 3rd May, 1951. On 23rd August, 1952, the said two executrices appointed Lloyds Bank, Limited, Calcutta, as their attorneys for them, on their behalf and in their names to apply for and obtain from the High Court of Judicature, Madras, or from any other competent Court in India letters of administration with a copy of the said Will annexed of the estate of the deceased and effects in India. By a power of substitution dated 17th December, 1952, the said Lloyds Bank, Limited Calcutta, appointed Laurence Claude Levack (the petitioner herein), an officer of the said Bank, Madras Branch, to be the duly constituted attorney of the said two executrices to apply for and obtain from this Court letters of administration with a copy of the Will. Thereupon the above petition was filed by Levack for the grant of letters of administration of the estate and effects of the said deceased with a copy of the said Will annexed to have effect only in the State of Madras to him as the duly constituted attorney of the executrices with probate in England of the said Will and for their use and benefit until they or either of them shall apply for and obtain probate in Madras. Along with the petition the petitioner filed a certified true copy of the probate of the said Will issued under the seal of the Principal Registry’ of the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice in England. A question was raised if, before letters of administration could be graned to the petitioner, an administration bond should be given to this Court under section 291 of the Succession Act (Act XXXIX of 1925, hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the grant in this case was a grant under section 241 of the Act and therefore the provisions of section 291 of the Act do not apply. It was therefore necessary to determine whether the petition fell within the scope of section 241 of the Act. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on the decision of a Bench of this Court in In re W. H. Sell1, in support of the position that the grant in this case should be deemed to be under section 241. The matter first came up before Subba Rao, J., sitting on the Original Side of this Court, and he passed the following Order:

"The, judgment of this Court in O.S.A. No.51 of 1939, In re W.H.Sell1, appears to me to be in the teeth of the express provisions of section 241 of the Indian Succession Act. But sitting alone I am bound by the Bench decision. This may be placed before the learned Chief Justice for consideration whether the question may be placed before a Division Bench."

The petition was posted thereafter before a Division Bench consisting of Satya-riarayana Rao and Rajagopalan, JJ. The learned Judges thought that the matter required consideration by a fuller Bench. They also suggested that as this matter was of sufficient importance notice should go to the Advocate-General to assist the Court in coming to a decision in the matter. It now comes up before this Full Bench after notice to the Advocate-General who has appeared and has been of considerable assistance to us. Section 241 of the Act runs thus:

"When any executor is absent from the province in which application is made, and there is no executor within the province willing to act, letters of administration, with the will annexed, may be granted to the attorney or agent of the absent executor for the use and benefit of his principal, limited until he shall obtain probate or letters of administration granted to himself."

Th