Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
D. Swaminathan (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Latha (Minor) – Respondent
S.A. No. 603 of 2007, M.P. Nos. 2, 3 of 2007, C.M.P. No. 13071 of 2017
Decided On : 30-01-2024
WILL - TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 216, 296 - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, particularly Sections 216 and 296, which stipulate that only the grantee of probate or letters of administration can sue until such grant is revoked. The court interpreted these sections to conclude that the revocation of the letters of administration nullified the plaintiffs' right to recover possession based on the will, as the will had not been proven genuine. This legal framework was pivotal in the court's decision to set aside the lower courts' decrees.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a property based on a will executed by their grandfather, which was contested by the defendants who alleged the will was forged. The plaintiffs had obtained letters of administration for the will, but the defendants later sought to revoke these letters, leading to a legal dispute over possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the letters of administration granted to the plaintiffs had been revoked, which meant they could no longer maintain their suit for possession based on the will. The court emphasized that the validity of the will had not been established, and thus the plaintiffs had no legal standing to claim possession.
Issues: Whether the courts below were correct in granting a decree for possession based on a will that had not been proven genuine and for which the letters of administration had been revoked.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the letters of administration were revoked, the plaintiffs lost their right to sue based on the will. The provisions of the Indian Succession Act, particularly Section 216, were critical in determining that only the grantee of the letters of administration could act as the representative of the deceased until the grant was revoked.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were set aside, as the plaintiffs could not maintain their suit without valid letters of administration.
JUDGMENT :
G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2005 in A.S.No.162 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.06.1996 in O.S.No.3247 of 1993 passed by the learned First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.
1. The third defendant in the suit has filed the above Second Appeal and pending this Second Appeal, the sole appellant died and the appellants 2 to 4 were brought on record as his legal heirs.
2. The present Second Appeal has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2005 in A.S.No.162 of 1997 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.06.1996 in O.S.No.3247 of 1993 passed by the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status as before the Trial Court.
The brief facts, which give rise to the instant second appeal, are as follows:
4. According to the plaintiffs, they are the absolute owners of the entire premises, bearing New No.16/2, Aziz Mulk 1st Street, Madras- 6, measuring 1200 sq.ft. The plaintiffs and their mother were residing in the back portion of the said premises, measuring 530 sq.ft., which is terraced having first floor and the rest of the said property measuring 670 sq.ft is tiled, which is occupied by the defendants.
5. Further, according to the plaintiffs, the said premises was originally a part of the property bearing old D.No.16, in all measuring 1430 sq.ft, which belonged to the plaintiffs' grandfather Dakshinamurthy. The said Dakshinamurthy had executed a Will dated 28.07.1980 by bequeathing the rear portion measuring an extent of 1200 sq.ft to the plaintiffs. After the death of the plaintiffs' grandfather Dakshinamurthy on 29.01.1982, they have filed an Original Petition in O.P.No.185 of 1984 before this Court for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.
6. According to the plaintiffs, D.Yashodha/mother of the plaintiffs, was appointed as natural guardian of the plaintiffs and the Letters of administration was issued in her favour. Since the plaintiffs were intending to develop the property bequeathed in their favour, they came up with the suit for recovery of possession.
7. The said suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement by disputing the Will. According to the defendants, the Will is a forged one and not sustainable in law. Further, the property is measuring 1430 sq.ft, but in the Will, it is mentioned as only 1200 sq.ft.
8. According to the defendants, Late Dakshinamurthy had got four female issues and two male issues in addition to his wife. Neither of them was consulted and they had no knowledge about the Will executed by Late Dakshninamurthy. The defendants further contended that in the probate proceedings, no notice was issued and they were not made as parties. Since no notice was issued, they have taken steps to revoke the probate. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit.
Evidence and documents:
9. During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' mother/D.Yasodha was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the third and first defendants were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and no documents were marked.
Findings of the Courts below:
10. After appreciating the evidences and documents, the Trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the first and third defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.162 of 1992. The Lower Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidences, dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, since the first appellant in the appeal died pending the appeal, the third defendant has come up with the present Second Appeal.
Substantial question of law:
11. At the time of admission, this Court, by an order dated 18.08
The revocation of letters of administration nullifies any legal actions taken based on the authority of those letters, and a will must be proven genuine before any claims based on it can be upheld in....
Revocation of Letters of administration nullifies the basis for recovery of possession, requiring validation of the Will before any legal action can proceed.
Revocation of Letters of Administration under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act is justified if obtained through misrepresentation and failure to implead all legal heirs.
A third party cannot seek revocation of probate after delay when beneficiary under Will remained silent during her lifetime.
The duty of parties to come forward with a true case and true evidence, and the significance of prompt action in seeking probate of a Will.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
