Swaminathan vs Alankamony (Dead) Through Lrs

2022 INSC 283 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.798­799 OF 2013

SWAMINATHAN & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ALANKAMONY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

1. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order dated

05.11.2008 whereby an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian

Succession Act, 1925 (for short, ‘the Act’) filed by the brother of the

testator for revocation of Letters of Administration dated 09.03.2002

was allowed.

2. The appellants sought Letters of Administration of a registered

Will deed dated 23.08.1991 said to have been executed by one

Thankappan Nadar in favour of the appellant – brother of the testator

and his two sons. After the grant of Letters of Administration, another

1 brother of testator filed an application for revocation of the Letters of

Administration on the ground that all the legal heirs were not

impleaded in the proceedings for the grant of Letters of

Administration. The Civil Court dismissed the application for

revocation but the order was set aside in appeal. Aggrieved, the legatee

is in appeal before this Court.

3. Drawing our attention to the difference in the language employed

between Section 276 and Section 278, the learned counsel for the

appellants contended that what was filed by the appellants was a

petition under Section 276(1) and that therefore, the requirement to

make a mention about the details of the family and other relatives of

the deceased, contained in Section 278(1) cannot be imported into

Section 276. According to the learned counsel, the petition filed by the

appellants was one for the grant of Letters of Administration with the

Will annexed. It was not a petition filed under Section 278(1).

4. In order to appreciate the above contention, it is necessary to

present Section 276(1) and Section 278(1) in a table as follows:­

Section 276 Section 278

276. Petition for probate.— 278. Petition for letters of (1) Application for probate or for letters administration.—(1) Application for of administration, with the Will letters of administration shall be made

2 annexed, shall be made by a petition by petition distinctly written as distinctly written in English or in the aforesaid and stating— language in ordinary use in proceedings (a) the time and place of the before the Court in which the deceased’s death; application is made, with the Will or, in (b) the family or other relatives of the cases mentioned in sections 237, the deceased, and their respective 238 and 239, a copy, draft, or residences;

statement of the contents thereof, (c) the right in which the petitioner annexed, and stating— claims; (a) the time of the testator’s death, (d) the amount of assets which are (b) that the writing annexed is his likely to come to the petitioner’s last Will and testament, hands; (c) that it was duly executed, (e) when the application is to the (d) the amount of assets which are District Judge, that the deceased likely to come to the petitioner’s at the time of his death had a fixed hands, and place of abode, or had some (e) when the application is for property, situate within the probate, that the petitioner is the jurisdiction of the Judge; and executor named in the Will. (f) when the application is to a District Delegate, that the deceased (2)… at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode within the (3)… jurisdiction of such Delegate.

(2) …

5. But unfortunately for the appellants, the catch is not to be found

in the distinction between Section 276 and Section 278. It is to be

found in Section 263 which reads as follows:­

263. Revocation or annulment for just cause. —The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause.

Explanation. —Just cause shall be deemed to exist where—

(a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or

(b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or

(c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or

3

(d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or

(e) the person to whom the grant was made has wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect.

Illustrations

(i) The Court by which the grant was made had no jurisdiction.

(ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited.

(iii) The Will of which probate was obtained was forged or revoked.

(iv) A obtained letters of administration to the estate of B, as his widow, but it has since transpired that she was never married to him.

(v) A has taken administration to the estate of B as if he had died intestate, but a will has since been discovered.

(vi) Since probate was granted, a latter Will has been discovered.

(vii) Since probate was granted, a codicil has been discovered which revokes or adds to the appointment of executors under the Will.

(viii) The person to whom probate was, or letters of administration were, granted has subsequently become of unsound mind.

6. As per Section 263, the grant of Letters of Administration may be

revoked for “just cause”. Explanation (a) under Section 263 states

that just cause shall be deemed to exist where the proceedings were

defective in substance. Illustration (ii) under Section 263 deals with a

case where “the grant was made without citing parties who ought to

have been cited”.

4

7. It may be of interest to note that some of the colonial statutes

contain Illustrations which form part of the statutes themselves. The

Indian Succession Act, 1925 is one such enactment.

8. Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that a just cause

existed for revoking the grant. Hence, we do not find any error in the

order of the High Court warranting our interference. Therefore the

appeals are dismissed.

9. Pending applications(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

…………………………….J. (Hemant Gupta)

…………………………….J. (V. Ramasubramanian)

NEW DELHI:

9th March, 2022

5 ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.11 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s).798-799/2013

SWAMINATHAN & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

ALANKAMONY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Respondent(s)

Date : 09-03-2022 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. A. Mariaputham, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anurag Dayal Mathur, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv.

M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Beno Bencigar, Adv.

Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(SWETA BALODI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed order is placed on the file)

6