9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitions are filed under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, "the Act") for setting aside the grant of letters of administration issued by this Court on 31-3-2011 in Petition No. 722 of 2010 in favour of the respondent on various grounds. 2. The petitioners in both the petitions claim certain rights in respect of few properties described in the Schedule appended to the petition for letters of administration filed by the respondent in this Court in respect of the estate of deceased Triza Domnic D'souza. The respondent claims to be the grandson of the said deceased. 3. Both the petitioners have urged before this Court that the grant obtained by the respondent is liable to be revoked on the just cause under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d deceased in the year 1966, which was a registered Will and the respondent having suppressed the existence of the said Will of the said deceased and by making a false and incorrect statement before this Court obtained the letters of administration. The learned counsel also invited my attention to copy of a Power of Attorney annexed to the compilation of documents which refers to the said Will and the said Power of Attorney has been signed by the respondent also. My attention is also invited to the averments made in the sur-rejoinder filed by the respondent on 21-3-2014 and in particular paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 thereof in support of the submission that the respondent does not dispute that the said deceased had left a Will dated 23-2-1966. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year 1966, the said deceased had not bequeathed the property in which the petitioners claim rights and thus on that ground itself the petitioners cannot be allowed to apply for revocation of the grant issued in favour of the respondent. The learned senior counsel submits that even if the said property would have been part of the bequest of the deceased testator, the petitioners cannot be allowed to urge the allegations of fraud, fabrication or that the respondent made false statement in the letters of administration since none of the petitioners have caveatable interest and the petitioners having claimed interest adverse to the alleged title of the deceased and in view of the Testamentary Court not empowered to decide the title dispute. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition for letters of administration filed by the respondent and the said order would operate in rem, which grant is obtained fraudulently and affects the rights of the petitioners, the petitioners have locus standi to file a petition for revocation of such grant obtained fraudulently and by concealment of material facts. 12. A perusal of Testamentary Petition No. 722 of 2010, filed by the respondent in this Court, inter aha praying for letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased indicates that the said petition is filed on the premise that the said deceased died intestate and in spite of due and diligent search made by the respondent for a Will, none had been found. Since there was no contest or objection raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abrication or concealment of facts, if brought to the notice of the Court, whether the Court can suo motu revoke the grant, if satisfied that such concealment, fraud or fabrication is made by the party obtaining such grant? 15. In catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, it is held that a party who has no caveatable interest or even a slightest interest in the property of the deceased and a party who claims interest adverse to the interest of the deceased testator cannot maintain a caveat. The Testamentary Court does not decide the title in respect of the property of a deceased. But insofar as the claim of the petitioners that they have interest in some of the properties which were the subject-matter of the petition for let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration is accepted, in view of the fact that there is no dispute that the said deceased left a Will and/or the same is discovered subsequently, such grant is liable to be revoked under section 263(b) and (c) of the Act. A conjoint reading of Illustrations (v) and (vi) to section 263 of the Act makes it clear that even after the administration of the estate, if the Will is discovered subsequently, such grant is liable to be revoked. 19. I am not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned senior counsel that merely because there was no specific bequest in the Will of the deceased in respect of the plots in which the petitioners claim interest, the petitioners cannot be even allowed to urge and bring to the notice of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
