Ramanathan Chettiar V. Barfi Lall

1927 Present: Garvin J. and Maartensz  A.J.

RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR  v. BARFI LALL.

20-D. C. Jaffna,5,870.

Official administrator-Application for administration by a creditor-Appointment of official administrator-Letters of administration pendente lite.

An official administrator should be appointed only when there is no fit and proper person to be appointed administrator.

Where proceedings are pending for the appointment of an administrator it is open to the Court to appoint an administrator pendente lite.

Neemath Umma v. Abdul Wahab 1 [(1919) 6 C. W. R. 288.] followed.

APPLICATION for letters of administration for the intestate estate of Mathan Lall by the appellant .is creditor of the estate. The facts appear from the judgment.

H. V. Perera (with Navaratnam and Nadarajah), for appellant.

Croos DaBrera, for 1st respondent.

Hayley (with Rajaratnam), for 2nd respondent.

Joseph (with H. H. Bartholomeusz and  R. L. Bartholomeusz), for 3rd respondent.

July 13, 1927. MAARTENSZ A.J.-

The appellant in this case purports to be creditor of the intestate estate of Bajanamand Mathan Lall, late of Khurja in India.

The intestate and his brother Baboo Lall, who predeceased him, were carrying on business in Jaffna under the name of B. Mathan Lall and Brother. The intestate was Baboo Lall's sole heir under the terms of a joint will executed by the brothers and was at the time of his death sole owner of the business, and in addition left a considerable amount of immovable property in Jaffna. The debts due to the business are put down at Rs. 200,000 and the debts due by the intestate at Rs. 550,000.

In case No. 5,828 letters ad colligenda were granted to the appellant as a creditor of the estate on June 9, 1925, on the ground that there was no one in Ceylon to represent the estate.

On July 23 the first respondent, as widow of the intestate, obtained in case No. 5,870 an order nisi appointing her administratrix of the estate, which order, so far as I can gather from the record, was made absolute on September 10, 1925.

On July 19, 1926, she was ordered to give security in the sum of Rs. 530,000.

On August 19 she intimated in case No. 5,870 that she was unable to give the security ordered. Prior to that, in the course of certain proceedings in case No. 5,828 had no August 3, 1926, there is a record that the widow, the present petitioner, is not prepared to give security and take out letters of administration and that the appellant consents to take out letters.

The District Judge then made the following order:-" He (appellant) will file papers and give the necessary security within three weeks hereof. If this is not done the letters ad colligenda will be withdrawn and the estate officially administered."

The appellant filed papers in case No. 5.870 on August 20 and moved for an order absolute in the first instance and that the security he reduced by Rs. 398,845, as the creditors to that amount had consented to letters issuing to him without security, on which the following order was made:-"File promissory notes and account particulars and other documents, in proof of his debt." I take it this order meant that the appellant was to file documentary evidence in proof of the debts due to him by the intestate.

On August 24 the appellant's application for letters of administration Was opposed by the widow, and, after considerable discussion, the learned District Judge appointed the Secretary of the Court official administrator and cancelled the letters ad colligenda issued to the appellant. The appeal is from this order.

I am of opinion that the appellant's contention that he was not given an opportunity of establishing his claim to letters of administration and that an official administrator should not be appointed unless there is no one else to represent the estate must be upheld.

In the course of his judgment the learned District Judge expresses his dou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document