JUDGMENT

Misra and Madeley, JJ. - This is an application under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC for review of our order, dated 11th May, 1944, rejecting Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 684 and 788 of 1943.

2. The case has a long history, and it is necessary to state the following pedigree for the proper understanding of the facts.

3. Amongst the assets of Badshah Begam there were certain Government promissory notes of the value of Rs. 62,300 in deposit in the Bank of Bengal at Calcutta standing in the joint names of Roshan Ara Begam and Jehangir Mirza. On her death Roshan Ara Begam and Jehangir Mirza were her heirs and inherited the notes in proportion to 1/3rd and 2/3rds. Roshan Ara Begam died in 1902 and left her children and Mirza Kambakht, her husband, as her successors. Jehangir Mirza also died leaving him surviving Afsar Ara Begam his widow and Mst. Khairunnissa, his daughter. On 11th March, 1911, Afsar Ara Begam applied for letters of administration in respect of the promissory notes of Rs. 62,300, and on 21st of June, 1912 she obtained a grant from this Court in respect of 2/3rd's share of her husband Jehangir Mirza. As the notes stood in the names of the two persons in the bank, the latter refused to hand them over to the administratrix alone without a discharge from the representatives of Roshan Ara Begam. It was found impossible to get Mirza Kambakht to do anything in the matter, and on 29th May, 1914, further letters of administration were granted to Afsar Ara Begam in respect of the interests of Roshan Ara Begam also.

4. Mean while Mirza Kambakht died, and on 21st November, 1916 two of the sons of Roshan Ara Begam, namely Qaisar Mirza and Qura Ali filed Miscellaneous Application No. 491 of 1916 praying that the later grant in the name of Afsar Ara Begam be revoked and annulled and that she be ordered to deposit the amount of Roshan Ara's share in Court. The real dispute between the heirs of Roshan Ara Begam and Afsar Ara Begam was as to the amount to which Qaisar Mirza and Ors. were entitled. A Bench of the late Court of the Judicial Commissioner considered and the matter in its order, dated 11th January, 1917, referring to the dispute between the parties it observed that if they wished to clear up the matter, the obvious course for them was to bring a suit against the lady as an administratrix of the estate. It further observed that while suggesting that Afsar Ara Begam should be removed from the position of administratrix, the applicants did not make any suggestion as to who was to be appointed in her place. The Judicial Commissioners were, however, satisfied that in the circumstances the portion of the estate, which belonged to the heirs of Roshan Ara Begam, should be put in such custody that it would be impossible for the capital to be touched by Afsar Ara Begun until the questions in dispute were settled between the parties, and they accordingly ordered that the securities of Rs. 20,766-10-6 should be handed over by Afsar Ara Begam to the Registrar of Judicial Commissioner's Court and they be kept by him in safe deposit in order to safeguard the interests of the applicants.

5. Under Order 45, Rule 3 of the Rules of Supreme Court, 1883, the administrators or the heirs at law of a deceased persons or certain other person mentioned therein may take out an originating summons returnable in the Chambers of a Judge of the Chancery Division for the reliefs mentioned in the rule. Amongst the matters so specified is the payment into Court of any monies in the hands of the administrators. Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act provides that where letters of administration in respect of any estate have been granted under the Act, a High Court may, on an application made to it, give to the administrator any general or special directions in regard to the estate or in regard to the administration thereof. In our opinion a High Court has power, u/s 302 of the Indian Succession Act, to give the directions which the Court of Chancery