Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 4556
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU, J.
J.S. Rajkumar
Versus
Shyna Paul
Application No.3484 of 2011 in O.P. No.520 of 2004
Decided on : 08-11-2012
For the Petitioner:Rajnish Pathiyil, Advocate.
For The Respondent:Shyna Paul, Advocate.
Caveatable interest and ongoing property ownership litigation are crucial considerations in revocation of letters of administration.
Headnote:
Revocation of Letters of Administration - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, Section 263 - Supreme Court Judgment - Limitation - Caveatable Interest
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a third party, sought to revoke the letters of administration granted to the first respondent in a property dispute. The applicant claimed ownership of a flat through a gift deed executed before the Will, and contested the first respondent's claim to the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application, citing the applicant's lack of caveatable interest in the letters of administration and the ongoing litigation over the property's ownership.
Issues: Ownership dispute over a flat, revocation of letters of administration, limitation for filing application, and caveatable interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The applicant's lack of caveatable interest and the ongoing property ownership litigation were key factors in the court's decision to dismiss the application.
Final Decision: The application for revocation of letters of administration was dismissed by the court.
K. CHANDRU, J.
1. This application is filed by a third party to the Original Petition seeking to revoke the letters of administration granted in O.P.No.520 of 2004 vide order dated 14.6.2007 in favour of the first respondent. On notice being served, a counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, dated 12.10.2012. The first respondent also filed a written submission.
2. Heard the arguments of Ms.S.Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr.G. Ilamurugu, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / original petitioner.
3. The original petition was filed by the first respondent for the grant of letters of administration to the petitioner with the Will annexed left by late Dr. V.M. Chandrahas, dated 08.11.2001 being the sole beneficiary under the Will, having the effect throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. The O.P was admitted on 20.9.2004. After following due procedures, this court had granted letters of administration to the first respondent by an order dated 14.6.2007.
4. This applicant claims that the schedule property is a flat in a residential complex situated in New Door No.10, Valliammal Street, Kilpauk, measuring an extent of 480 square feet of undivided share out o an extent of 4800 sq.ft. The entire extent of land was purchased by the testator Dr. V.M. Chandrahas from one A.V. Gopinath and A.V. Jayakumar through their power agent Mr. Ashish Nanda by way of a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2000. Subsequently, he had constructed a flat to an extent of 1000 sq.ft. through one Mahalakshmin Enterprises. The testator was a Gastrointestinal surgeon. The applicant is running hospitals under the name and style of Rigid Hospitals and Life Line Hospitals. He is the Chairman and Chief Surgeon of the said hospitals. The testator was the family friend of the applicant's father and known to the applicant from his childhood. He used to regularly attend the testator during his ailment and used to take care of his health. His wife predeceased him without any issue in the year 1997. The testator had voluntarily executed a gift deed on 16.7.2001 which was registered as a document in the Sub Registrar Office, Periamet, Chennai in his favour in respect of the said property while he was in a sound and disposing state of mind with full power of alienation. He had handed over the duplicate set of keys of the flat thereby giving symbolic possession. He reserved his right to reside in the flat till his life time and only thereafter, the applicant was entitled to take the physical possession and can enjoy the property. He had also delivered the original title deeds and other connected records pertaining to the property on the same day. The testator died on 17.3.2002 in the same flat.
5. It was further stated that the first respondent brought to the notice of the applicant that the testator had left the alleged Will and had appointed the second respondent as an executor. The first respondent with a view to grab the property sent a letter dated 18.7.2002 regarding the Will dated 08.11.2001. It was stated that the testator had bequeathed the petition schedule mentioned property to the first respondent. A suitable reply was also sent on 25.07.2002 stating that the Will nowhere referred to the petition schedule mentioned property. The Will merely narrated that whatever left behind him at the time of his demise, both movable and immovable, will go to the first respondent. Therefore, the schedule property having been gifted much earlier by a registered gift deed earlier to the Will, there is no question of having the property bequeathed to the first respondent. The first respondent had approached this court and had obtained the letters of administration by suppression, fraud and misrepresentation. The applicant had already sold the property to one Thillai Selvam of Royapuram for a valuable consideration by a registered sale deed. But the first respondent had filed a suit in C.S.No.759 of 2009 before this
