JUDGMENT

Henry Richards, C.J. - The facts connected with this appeal are as follows : It is alleged that one Sanwalia died intestate. The property left by him is said to be only a house in a village. One Parman applied for letters of administration to the estate of the deceased and obtained an order on the 18th of September, 1914. The order was in the following terms:

Read application from the abovenamed petitioner, dated the 18th of August, 1914, requesting that letters of administration to the estate of Sanwalia, deceased, may be granted to him under Act V of 1881. Valued at Rs. 400. Order - This case has been uncontested. I grant letters of administration to Parman applicant for the estate of his deceased nephew, Sanwalia; provided that if the valuation of the house made by the Collector exceeds the amount stated in the application the deficiency in foes shall be recovered.

2. It appears that later on the same clay one Nek Ram came into court, with the result that the learned judge passed the following order:

After passing the above ex parte order a petition has this day been filed. I cancel the above order and frame the following issue. "Is Parman the uncle and heir of the deceased Sanwalia.

3. Parman has come in appeal to this Court contending that the order granting him Letters of Administration should not have been cancelled by the learned Judge without giving him notice. Nek Ram's contention admittedly is, that Sanwalia died intestate and without heirs and that according to custom the house reverts to him as zamindar. It seems to me that Parman having obtained an order granting him letters of administration, that order ought not to have been cancelled without giving him notice. This in itself is sufficient to dispose of the present "'appeal. I think, however, that it is right to point out a few matters to the learned Judge. It does not appear upon what evidence, the order in favour of Parman was made. In my opinion a court ought never to grant letters of administration to the estate of a deceased person without having good prime facie evidence that the applicant has such an interest in the estate of the deceased as would entitle him to a grant of letters of administration. A person who satisfies the court that he is the heir, or one of the heirs of the deceased, has such an interest. A creditor also has an interest. In an insolvent's estate the creditor's interest is even greater than that of the heirs. I think even assuming that Parman had satisfied the court that he had an interest as one of the heirs of the deceased, it ought to have ordered him to give security for the due administration of the estate of the deceased. I think, also, that it is a wise precaution for the court to have clear evidence as to who are the other persons interested in the estate and as a general rule to direct that such persons should get notice either that the application has been made or at least that the application for letters of administration has been allowed. The question whether or not the zamindar Nek Ram has such an "interest" as will entitle him to oppose the grant of letters of administration will probably arise. It seems to me that Nek Ram has no "interest" in the estate of the deceased. His contention is that the moment Sanwalia died without heirs the house reverted to him. It is contended on behalf of Nek Ram that if letters of administration are once granted to Parman the result would be that under the provisions of Section 14 and Section 59 the zamindar will never afterwards be allowed to say-that Sanwalia died without heirs. If this is really the result of the provisions of the sections I have mentioned, it certainly would seem only just to allow Nek Ram an opportunity of contesting that Parman is the heir of the deceased. I, however, do not think that we are called upon to decide this question in the present appeal. I would set aside the order of the learned District Judge cancelling the grant of letters of administration and