The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petition for the grant of letters of administration is governed by the rules framed under the Letters Patent and Order 25 Rule 9 of the O.S. Rules, and the general bar under Article 137 of the Limitation Act does not apply.

K. Chandru, J.

1. Application No.3515 of 2012 is filed by two applicants, i.e., 5th and 3rd respondents in the O.P., seeking for rejection and dismissal of the O.P.No.731 of 2011. Application No.3516 of 2012 is filed by the first respondent for the very same purpose. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents/ original petitioners, dated Nil (August, 2012) in both applications.

2. It is seen from the records that the original petitioners filed the original petition seeking for the grant of the letters of administration with a Will, dated 11.12.1996 annexed in favour of the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased and legatees under the said Will executed by late S.M. Subramaniam Chettiar, having the effect limited to the State of Tamil Nadu. The O.P was admitted on 16.12.2011. Even during the pendency of the O.P., the first respondent filed a caveat in Caveat No.371 of 2012 together with supporting affidavit of objection. Similarly, respondents 3 and 5 also filed a caveat in Caveat No.459 of 2012 together with an affidavit of objection. Even before they could be considered, the two applications have been taken out.

3. It is the stand of the first respondent in A.No.3516 of 2012 that she is the daughter of late S.M. Subramaniam Chettiar, who admittedly died on 15.12.1996. According to her, her father died intestate. She had filed a suit in C.S.No.524 of 2007 seeking for partition of the property left behind by her father. One of the properties left behind by her father is situated within the jurisdiction of this court, i.e., in T. Nagar, Chennai. She had demanded for partition of the property left behind by her father. As her brothers did not effect partition, she had issued a legal notice on 18.04.2003. Inspite of the same, no partition was effected. Therefore, she filed C.S.No.524 of 2007 on 21.3.2007 before this court. The original petitioners' allegation that the Will was left behind by their father on 11.12.1996 was not genuine. Since she had issued a notice on 18.04.2003, the petitioners should have filed a petition either for probate or for letters of administration within a period of three years. In view of the mandatory provision of Section 213(1) of the Indian Succession Act, the right to apply begins on the date of the death of the testator and the proceedings for the grant of probate or letters of administration should have been filed within three years from 15.12.1996. Further, no petition for the grant of probate or letters of administration was filed within three years from the date of filing of the suit in C.S.No.524 of 2007.

4. A reference was made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur reported in(2008) 8 SCC 463, wherein the Supreme Court had held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to a petition for the grant of letters of administration. Hence it was prayed that the O.P should be rejected.

5. In A.No.3515 of 2012, the 5th respondent had stated that their father died intestate on 15.12.1996. She is the eldest daughter and the first child of the testator. When he died, he was 86 years and was suffering from cancer. He was admitted to the Apollo Hospital on 04.12.1996. After exhausting all possibilities, the hospital administration had discharged him as he was dying from the end stage cancer. Be became unconscious and never regained consciousness till his death. The Will, dated 11.12.1996 was bogus and fabricated by the first and second respondents, who are the original petitioners, with the connivance of the 6th respondent. Her father was unconscious even on the date of execution of the alleged Will. The Will was not genuine and it was fabricated only to deprive her 1/9th share in the estate. Her father did not execute any Will. Her father was a business man and was in the habit of signing in English in all business and banking transactions. He never affixed any thumb impression as in the case of the Will. If he was in consc