Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 78
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Petitioner
Versus
Respondent
OPD. No. 35654 of 2017
Decided On : 09-01-2018
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's emphasis on the lack of bona fide in the petitioners' actions and the court's inherent duty to safeguard every property.
Headnote:
Indian Succession Act - Grant of Letters of Administration - Sections 217, 253, 254, 278 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Sections 29, 41, and the Administrators-General Act, 1963, particularly Sections 2(a), 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20(1). The court highlighted the principles of escheat, the powers of the Administrator General, and the circumstances in which letters of administration can be granted.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed for the grant of Letters of Administration without Will under Sections 217, 253, 254, 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The petitioners initially claimed to be Class II legal heirs but later altered their claim without providing a reason. The court found the petition to lack bona fide and rejected it as not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioners' actions to lack bona fide and held that they had no locus standi to claim Letters of Administration. The court emphasized its inherent duty to safeguard every property and concluded that the petition was not maintainable before the court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' altered claim as Class II legal heirs and the maintainability of the petition for the grant of Letters of Administration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of escheat, the powers of the Administrator General, and the circumstances in which letters of administration can be granted. It also highlighted the lack of bona fide in the petitioners' actions and the court's inherent duty to safeguard every property.
Final Decision: OPD.No.35654 of 2017 was rejected as not maintainable before the court. No costs were awarded.
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
1. The above Original Petition has been filed, under Sections 217, 253, 254 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for the grant of Letters of Administration without Will.
2. The matter was posted before this Court for maintainability.
3. This Court heard Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
4. In the petition, as it was originally filed, paragraph 13 was as follows:-
“13. The Petitioners submit that the deceased is the sister of J.Jayakumar, who predeceased long ago. The mother of the deceased died in 1971. In the affidavit in Form 26 dated 25.4.2016, of the deceased had declared that she has no dependants vide column 4 of the affidavit. However, the daughter and son of J.Jayakumar are claiming as Class II legal heirs of the deceased in view of the relationship that their late father J.Jayakumar as the brother of the deceased. The Petitioners now learnt and submits that J.Deepa daughter of J.Jayakumar has converted to Christianity and married one Patrik Madhavan. Therefore, the Petitioners submit that she may not be considered as a Class II heir under Hindu Law. The Petitioners submit that this matter requires a consideration since the two did not come forward to claim the estate in a manner known to law. The Petitioner submits that huge voluminous estate, assets, shares, securities, etc. of the deceased are spread over the State of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere.”
5. When the papers were returned, the said paragraph 13 had been corrected and a few sentences had been deleted and a fresh sentence had been inserted and the revised paragraph 13 was as follows:-
“'13. The Petitioners submit that the deceased is the sister of J.Jayakumar, who predeceased long ago. The mother of the deceased died in 1971. In the affidavit in Form 26 dated 25.4.2016 of the deceased had declared that she has no dependants vide column 4 of the affidavit. Therefore. The Petitioner have not cited any persons as Class II heirs under Hindu Law in this petition. The Petitioners submit that this matter requires a consideration since the two did not come forward to claim the estate in a manner known to law. The Petitioner submits that huge voluminous estate, assets, shares, securities, etc. of the deceased are spread over the State of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere.”
6. On the face of it, it clearly establishes that the Petitioners have filed a petition, in which in the verification column, they have stated that “What is stated in paragraphs 1 to 25 are true to our knowledge and we believe the same to be true” and after making such verification, they have made a very material alteration with respect to Class II heirs and have retained the very same verification without any correction. Mala fide on the part of the Petitioners is apparent even on the face of record. Even other wise, the matter will have to be examined in a more detailed manner to examine whether the Registry can number the OP and take it on file.
7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on AIR 1920 Patna 197 (Babui Bhagwati Kuer Vs. Bahuria Ramsakthi Kuer and others). That was an appeal against the order of a District Judge, granting Letters of Administration to the estate of oneTrigunanand Upadhya to the Manager of the Court of Wards. In the said judgement, it was held that the order of the District Judge cannot be supported. Section 41 of the Probate and Administration Act was discussed and it was held that in the said provision, there was a discretion available to the Court. However, it does not mean that the Court can make an arbitrary selection from among the persons contending grant of Letters of Administration. At the time when the District Judge had granted Letters of Administration to the Manager of the Court of Wards, the Appellants were minors, but by the time the Division Bench in Patna decided the case, the minors had attained the age of majority and also on the ground and on facts, the Division Bench
