Terrell CJ:

The petitioner is the only son of the deceased, and applied for letters of administration by his attorney PA Mohideen Batcha. The date of the petition is 14 October 1940. On 22 October 1940 Batcha Ammal, a daughter of the deceased, filed a caveat by her attorney, A. Mohamed Abdullah, the latter being a substituted attorney under powers originally given in favour of one Abdul Gaffoor. The authority of the attorney to file a caveat was challenged in the Court below and again in the Court of Appeal. The learned trial Judge ruled that the authority was sufficient, and I will deal with this issue later.

On 25 October 1940 the caveator was duly warned in accordance with the rules entitled 'Non-contentious business' made under s. 75 of the Courts Enactment (Gazette Notification No. 2179/16). On 29 October 1940 an appearance was entered by the Solicitors for the caveator in pursuance of the provisions of r. 65, which reads as follows:

Upon an appearance being entered in answer to the warming of a caveat, the matter shall be entered as a cause in the Court book, and the contentious business shall thereupon be held to commence, and the expenses of the entry of such caveat and the warning thereof shall upon taxation be considered as costs in the cause.

The learned trial Judge accepted the argument that under s. 77 of the Probate & Administration Enactment (Cap. 8) he had power to make a grant of letters of administration notwithstanding the caveat and the appearance entered to the warning, provided that the caveator had received notice. He held that a contentious suit had not yet commenced.

On the appeal Mr. Braddell (for the caveator) argued that contentious business had commenced when an appearance had been entered under r. 65, and that there was no jurisdiction to make a grant of letters of administration until the issues raised had been dealt with. He also argued that upon the admitted facts there was no estate, the only object of the petitioner in obtaining letters of administration being to bring a suit as administrator to set aside certain transfers of the deceased in favour of the caveator. It was contended therefore that on this ground also the Court had no jurisdiction, the petitioner having failed to show that the deceased had any property in the Federated Malay States, which is the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by s. 67 of the Enactment. Mr. Shearn for the respondent again raised the extent of the attorney's authority to file a caveat. In addition to supporting the judgment of the Court below he also submitted that there had been no proper appearance, as the actual appearance entered did not comply with r. 13 (Contentious business) at p. 54 of volume I of Allen's Rules.

I will deal first with the respondent's submissions. First with regard to the power of attorney. The caveator had given altogether four powers of attorney in favour of Abdul Gaffoor. The recitals made it clear, inter alia, that the deceased was originally entitled to a 6/13 share in the business of RE Mohamed Kassim & Co. FMS and had by deed of gift dated 22 May 1940 transferred a moiety of such interest to the caveator. It was conceded in the Court of Appeal that the powers of attorney in favour of Abdul Gaffoor would have given him sufficient authority to file the caveat. It is argued, however, that the deed of substitution was more limited in its scope. It is true of course that the scope of general powers is limited by a subsequent grant of specific powers, but even so cl 4 of the deed of substitution seems sufficiently wide. It reads as follows:-

To commence, carry on, or defend all actions and other proceedings in Court to employ pleaders, vakils, attorneys, advocates etc., touching the estate and properties of RE Mohamed Kassim & Co. FMS or any part thereof in my name or in the names of my principals and on my behalf and on behalf of my principals aforesaid.

It will be seen that the attorney on behalf of his principal,