Re Estate of BOPEGAMAGE PRANSAPPU of Kumbalwela, deceased

Re Estate of BOPEGAMAGE PRANSAPPU of
Kumbalwela, deceased

D. C., Galle, 3,371.

APPU GUNATILEKE, Administrator,
Petitioner.

 LEISE JAYAWARDANE, Respondent and
Petitioner in Appeal.

Civil Procedure Code, s. 717-Widow of intestate keeping back property from administrator-Order on widow to pay into Court moneys of estate in her hands-Proper decree to be made-Delay of person cited to bring money into Court-Contempt of Court.

    Where a person retains possession of a sum of money belonging to an estate vested in an administrator by letters issued to him by the District Court, it is not a proper order to require the person cited to pay the money into Court.

    The proper course is to enter a simple decree requiring him to deliver possession of the money to the administrator petitioning for the same. "

    The person cited must be allowed a reasonable time to give security for the payment of the money.

    It is contempt of Court on the part of vicious intromitters to set at nought the provisions of the law requiring administrators to carry out duly the administration of estates.

THIS was an appeal against an order purporting to be made under section 717 of the Civil Procedure Code committing the appellant (the widow of the intestate) to prison as for a contempt of Court for the period of six months, or until she complies with the terms of a decree dated 9th March, 1903, whereby she was ordered to bring into Court Rs. 308 received by her out of the proceeds sale of the intestate's movable property. The facts of the case are set forth in the judgment of Wendt, J.

    Bawa, for appellant.

    H. Jayawardene, for petitioner, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

12th January, 1904. WENDT, J.-

    The proceedings before us were taken under chapter 54 of the Code, and began with a petiton of the administrator supported by affidavit under section 712, alleging that all the inventorized property of the intestate, consisting of money and movables, was in the possession of the appellant (the widow of the intestate) and of one Karunanaike. The Court on 24th September, 1902, directed

a citation to issue to the persons named in the petition, and the citation accordingly issued on 3rd December, accompanied by the  order required by section 713. Neither the citation nor the order  very closely follows the forms prescribed by the Code, but in substance they contain all that is necessary. On 19th December the widow appeared, and is recorded to have stated that " she had no property belonging to the estate, and that her husband had no money at the time of bis death." The matter was adjourned to 22nd December, when the window was examined on oath. As a result of her admissions, the Court ordered her to produce in Court on 22nd January, 1903, a sum of Rs. 300, being the moiety received by her out of the proceeds sale of some of the intestate's movable property. The matter was further adjourned to the 29th January, on which date the second respondent, Karuna Naike, also appeared and was examined on oath. As a result of his admissions he was ordered to pay into Court Rs. 152.41, and with this order he complied. The widow filed affidavit pleading inability to pay the Rs. 300 into Court. She was directed to serve this affidavit on the administrator, and the parties were heard upon it on 3rd March, 1903, and the Court reserved its order. On 9th March the Court declared itself not satisfied with the petitioner's allegations as to the other property, but proceeding on the widow's admission found that she had received Rs. 308 out of the proceeds sale of the furniture, and that her plea that, she had made use of the money for her own expenses could not be accepted. It therefore directed that a decree be entered against the window requiring her to pay into Court Rs. 308, or to find two sureties to pay this amount on or before 9th April, 1903, an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document