SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1940 MarsdenLR 41

HIGH COURT (PERAK)

HOWES, J


ISSAR SINGH, SON OF BHOLA SINGH
versus
SAMUND SINGH, SON OF MAYIAH

.

Decided On : 05-27-40

Advocates:
For plaintiffs - Sharma For defendant - Thivy

JUDGMENT

Howes J:

In this case Howes J delivered an oral judgment.

In this case I think the wording of s. 158 of the Probate and Administration Enactment is clear. In cases where Letters of Administration, which have been granted in the United Kingdom or any other part of the British Dominions, are brought to this Court for resealing, an Administrator acquires his rights only on the date when the Letters of Administration are resealed.

Section 158 states that (subject to certain conditions contained in s. 159) Letters of Administration may be sealed with the seal of that Court (i.e. the FMS Court), "and thereupon shall be of the like force and effect, and have the same operation in the Federated Malay States as if granted by that Court".

It is clear to me that until the Penang Letters of Administration had been sealed by the seal of this Court, the Administrator had no rights whatever in the Federated Malay States.

In the present suit, the Plaintiff filed his plaint in the Federated Malay States on 1 May 1939 on the strength of his having obtained Letters of Administration in Penang, which were granted on 25 April 1939.

I think one must draw a hard and fast line in the case of resealing; just as much as in the grant of ordinary Letters of Administration. It is beyond dispute that in the ordinary way, an Administrator is not entitled to sue as such until he has obtained the grant of Letters of Administration.

At the time when the plaint was filed, the Plaintiff had no administrative capacity, so far as the Federated Malay States were concerned. The plaint might just as well have been signed by a stranger to the intestate - the plaintiff having no more rights in the intestate's property in the Federated Malay States than a stranger. That being so, I consider that the defence is good, namely, the Plaintiff had no power at the time of the issue of the plaint to institute this suit. There will therefore be judgment for the Defendant with costs.

Judgment for defendant.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top