( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of the learned single Judge rejecting the preliminary objections raised by the appellant that the respondents are not entitled to contest the proceedings relating to grant of letters of administration with the will annexed. The appellant Shobhnath dube claims to be the brother of Kashinath dube and his case is that Kashinath Dube had executed an unregistered Will dated 14-12-2003 in his favour. On the death of kashinath Dube he applied for grant of letters of administration. In the petition the appellant had shown Tara Devi widow of the deceased and Vijay Laxmi a married daughter of the deceased as heirs of the deceased. The court by order dated 11-10-2007 issued notices to these persons whereupon the respondent Tara Devi widow of the deceased filed a counter affidavit opposing the grant. She however did not lodge a caveat, which according to the appellant was a necessary requirement under Chapter XXX Rule 35 of the Rules of the Court. The learned single judge has held that a caveat need not be filed by a person who is heir of the deceased to whom citation has been issued. The only question that is involved in the present appeal relates, therefore, to the interpretation of Rule 35 of Chapter XXX of the Rules of the court. The said Rule is quoted as follows.

"35. Caveats.- Any person intending to oppose the issuing of a grant of probate or letters of administration must either personally or by his Advocate file a caveat in court in the prescribed form. Notice of the filing of the caveat shall be given by the court to the petitioner or his Advocate in the prescribed form. "

( 2 ) SRI Sandeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that every person who wants to contest the proceeding for the grant is required to file a caveat and that in the absence of a caveat he has no right to contest the proceeding. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant upon a decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Rukmani Devi and others v. Narendra Lal gupta, AIR 1984 SC 1866. In that case a citation was issued to the daughter-in-law of the deceased but she did not come forward to contest the proceeding and ultimately a probate was granted in favour of the applicant. She challenged the Will in a separate suit. Her right to challenge the Will was negatived because the order for the grant of a probate had become final as she did not choose to contest the probate proceedings though citation was issued to her. In the present case on the issuance of the citation the widow has appeared and has filed a counter affidavit contesting the case. The decision in Smt. Rukmani Devi, therefore, is clearly distinguishable.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant then relied upon the provisions of Section 283 (1) (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which are as follows:

"283 (1) (c ). Issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration. "

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel submits that under Section 283 (1) (c) a general citation is issued in a probate and letters of administration case. It is true that Section 283 (1) (c) relates to the issuance of a general citation. Section 235 however is a provision, which relates to issuance of citation to the next of kin. This provision is squarely applicable to the present case. Section 235 is quoted below;

"235. Citation before grant of administration to legatee other than universal or residuary. Letters of administration with the will annexed shall not be granted to any legatee other than an universal or a residuary legatee, until a citation has been issued and published in the manner hereinafter mentioned, calling on the next of kin to accept or refuse letters of administration. "

( 5 ) THE court is, therefore, duty bound to issue a citation to the next of kin. A widow would fall within the description of next kin. It appears that in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document