Supreme Court of India
SWAMINATHAN & ORS. versus ALANKAMONY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. on 9 March 2022
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 1 S.C.R. 878
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
ASWAMINATHAN & ORS.
v.
ALANKAMONY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
(Civil Appeal No.798-799 of 2013)
B
March 09, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Succession Act, 1925:s. 263 – Revocation of letters ofadministration – When – Held: As per s. 263, the grant of letters ofCadministration may be revoked for “just cause” – Explanation (a)states that just cause would be deemed to exist where the proceedingswere defective in substance – Illustration (ii) u/s. 263 deals with acase where “the grant was made without citing parties who oughtto have been cited” – On facts, the brother of the testator filedapplication for revocation of letters of administration on the groundDthat all the legal heirs were not impleaded in the proceedings forthe grant of letters of administration – High Court was right inholding that a just cause existed for revocation of Letters ofAdministration – Thus, the order of the High Court does not call forinterference.
ECIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 798-799 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2008 of the High Courtof Judicature at Madras at Madurai Bench in CMA No.1004 of 2002and dated 21.07.2009 in Review Application (MD) No.08 of 2009.
F
A. Mariaputham, Sr. Adv., Anurag Dayal Mathur, AvneeshArputham, M/s Arputham Aruna And Co., Advs. for the Appellants.
Beno Bencigar, M. A. Chinnasamy, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
G
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order dated05.11.2008 whereby an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian SuccessionAct, 1925 (for short, ‘the Act’) filed by the brother of the testator forrevocation of Letters of Administration dated 09.03.2002 was allowed.
H
2. The appellants sought Letters of Administration of a registeredWill deed dated 23.08.1991 said to have been executed by oneThankappan Nadar in favour of the appellant – brother of the testatorand his two sons. After the grant of Letters of Administration, anotherbrother of testator filed an application for revocation of the Letters ofAdministration on the ground that all the legal heirs were not impleadedin the proceedings for the grant of Letters of Administration. The CivilCourt dismissed the application for revocation but the order was setaside in appeal. Aggrieved, the legatee is in appeal before this Court.
3. Drawing our attention to the difference in the languageemployed between Section 276 and Section 278, the learned counsel forthe appellants contended that what was filed by the appellants was apetition under Section 276(1) and that therefore, the requirement to makea mention about the details of the family and other relatives of thedeceased, contained in Section 278(1) cannot be imported into Section276. According to the learned counsel, the petition filed by the appellantswas 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 topresent Section 276(1) and Section 278(1) in a table as follows:- A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
5. But unfortunately for the appellants, the catch is not to be foundin the distinction between Section 276 and Section 278. It is to be foundin Section 263 which reads as follows:- A
263. Revocation or annulment for just cause. —The grant ofprobate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulledBfor just cause.
Explanation. —Just cause shall be deemed to exist where—
(a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective insubstance; or (b)the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a falsesuggestion, or by concealing from the Court somethingmaterial to the case; or C
(c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegationof a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, thoughsuch allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or D
(d) the grant has become useless and inoperative throughcircumstances; or (e) the person to whom the grant was made has wilfullyand without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventoryor account in accordance with the provisions of ChapterVII of this Part, or has exhibited under that Chapter aninventory or account which is untrue in a material respect.
E
Illustrations
(i) The Court by which the grant was made had nojurisdiction.
F
(ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought tohave been cited.
(iii) The Will of which probate was obtained was forged orrevoked.
G
(iv) A obtained letters of administration to the estate of B,as his widow, but it has since transpired that she was nevermarried to him.
(v) A has taken administration to the estate of B as if hehad died intestate, but a will has since been discovered.
H
(vi) Since probate was granted, a latter Will has beendiscovered.
A
(vii) Since probate was granted, a codicil has beendiscovered which revokes or adds to the appointment ofexecutors under the Will.
B
(viii) The person to whom probate was, or letters ofadministration were, granted has subsequently become ofunsound mind.
6. As per Section 263, the grant of Letters of Administration maybe revoked for “just cause”. Explanation (a) under Section 263 statesthat just cause shall be deemed to exist where the proceedings weredefective in substance. Illustration (ii) under Section 263 deals with acase where “the grant was made without citing parties who ought tohave been cited”.
C
7. It may be of interest to note that some of the colonial statutescontain Illustrations which form part of the statutes themselves. TheDIndian Succession Act, 1925 is one such enactment.
8. Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that a just causeexisted for revoking the grant. Hence, we do not find any error in theorder of the High Court warranting our interference. Therefore theappeals are dismissed.
E
9. Pending applications(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Nidhi Jain
Appeals dismissed.
F
G
H