Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
M. Manivannan (deceased) & Ors. - Applicants
Vs.
Ko. Munnetram alias Venkatachalam, S/o. Late Gopal Mudaliar & Ors. - Respondents
Application Nos.2842 and 2843 of 2010 in TOS.No.13 of 1993
Decided On : 20-03-2017
For the Applicant : Mr. R. Natarajan.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.V. Jayaraman Senior Counsel for Mr. J.R.K. Bhavananthan.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that obtaining Letters of Administration without impleading the legal representatives of a deceased defendant is a nullity in the eye of the law.
Headnote:
Revocation of Letters of Administration - Fraud upon the Court - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 15(2), Order 22 Rule 4 CPC - [FRAUD UPON THE COURT] - [Revocation of Letters of Administration] - [Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 15(2), Order 22 Rule 4 CPC]
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to revoke the grant of Letters of Administration, alleging that the original plaintiff obtained it by playing fraud upon the Court. They argued that the original plaintiff failed to disclose material facts, including the demise of a defendant and the non-disclosure of legal representatives. The original plaintiff contended that the applicants had no caveatable interest and that no ground was made for revocation. The court observed that the suit property belonged to Narayanasamy Mudaliar and that the alleged testatrix, Kokilambal, inherited the property of her husband, Duraikannu Mudaliar, and had no issues. The court noted that the original plaintiff did not implead the legal representatives of the deceased defendant and obtained Letters of Administration based on suppression of facts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original plaintiff obtained Letters of Administration by suppressing material facts and failing to implead the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. The court held that the grant of Letters of Administration was a nullity in the eye of the law and revoked the Letters of Administration granted in favor of the original plaintiff.
Issues: The issues involved in the application for revocation were: 1. Whether the suit abated on the death of the sole defendant and due to the failure to implead the legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant? 2. Whether the legal heirs of the deceased sole defendant could be said to have not inherited the caveatable interest of the defendant to question the genuineness and validity of the Will and the plea for the grant of Letters of Administration? 3. Whether there had been suppression of facts and the grant of Letters of Administration was obtained based on such suppression?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 15(2) and Order 22 Rule 4 CPC to establish that the grant of Letters of Administration without impleading the legal representatives of a deceased defendant is a nullity in the eye of the law. The court also referred to case law to support the principle that any decree passed without exemption granted by the Court against a deceased person cannot be valid in law.
Final Decision: The court revoked the Letters of Administration granted in favor of the original plaintiff in testamentary Suit, TOS.No.13 of 1993.
The captioned application has been filed by the applicants to revoke the grant of Letters of Administration dated 07.03.2008 in T.O.S.No.13 of 1993.
2. Originally, the Testamentary Suit was filed by the original plaintiff for issuance of Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 18.08.1990. This Court, vide judgment dated 07.3.2008, granted Letters of Administration to the original plaintiff. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the applicants have come forward with the instant application for revocation of Letters of Administration on the ground that the same has been obtained by the original plaintiff by playing fraud upon the Court, based upon a fabricated Will dated 18.8.1990 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Kokilambal. It is further stated that the original plaintiff has failed to disclose all the material facts concerning the deceased Kokilambal and the properties owned by her. It is also stated that though the factum of demise of the sole defendant in the TOS was very much known to the original plaintiff, the legal representatives of the sole defendant were not at all brought on record for the reasons best known to him. According to the applicants, any order obtained from the Court of Law by playing fraud upon the Court is a nullity and non-est in law. Hence, the applicants prayed for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted to the original plaintiff. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments reported in (2009) 14 SCC 294 (T. GNANAVEL V. T.S. KANAGARAJ AND ANOTEHR) and 2008 10 SCC 489 ( G. GOPAL V. C. BASKAR AND OTHERS) to substantiate the above contention.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the original plaintiff stating that the 1st applicant herein has no caveatable interest and that, no ground is made for revocation of Letters of Administration. According to the original plaintiff, the applicants are not entitled to suspend the operation of Letters of Administration. The 1st applicant, i.e., the deceased M.Manivannan was neither entitled to 1/4 share in the ground and building in premises bearing door No.32-44, Cooks Road, Otteri, Chennai-12 not had any caveatable interest in the subject matter of the Will. It is stated that the deceased himself admitted in his letter dated 04.10.1991 written by panchayatdars and signed by him in the presence of Panchayatdars that the aforesaid premises have been under the control of the original plaintiff and, therefore, the 1st applicant was estopped from denying the title of the landlord. Hence, the original plaintiff prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. Denying the statement made in the counter affidavit, a reply affidavit has been filed by 1st applicant interalia contending that the original plaintiff has filed concocted and fabricated documents to set forth a new claim of tenancy under the original plaintiff as against the 1st applicant. It is stated that the applicants herein are having caveatable interest, the concept of which although having not been defined under Indian Succession Act but the judicial pronouncement would amply imply and indicate that the applicants are having caveatable interest without whom the original plaintiff cannot seek Letters of Administration. It is not denied by the original plaintiff with regard to the existing dictum holding that the Letters of Administration obtained against dead person without impleading the legal representatives is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. It is contended that on the said sole ground itself the Letters of Administration granted is liable to be recalled or revoked. To substantiate the above contention, the learned counsel for the original plaintiff has placed reliance on the judgments reported in AIR 1955 SC 566 (ANIL BEHARI GHOSH V. SMT. LATIKA BALA DASSI AND OTHERS); 1994-2-LW 326 (R. THANGARAJAN V. R. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND 3 OTHERS) 2010 (2) CTC 680 (J. MALARVIZHI V. D. SHANKAR); 1992-1-LW. 185 (R. KRISHNAMOORTHY V. J. CHA
