KRISHNA KUNJULAKSHMI Vs. NARZAN ALIAS RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant did not succeed in an application filed under S.263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to get letters of administration issued in O.P. (LA) No. 152/88 revoked. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable. Therefore, this appeal.

(2.) Few facts are necessary to easily understand the controversy involved in this case. One Krishnan Bhaskaran went abroad to Singapore and settled there. He acquired properties in Singapore as well as in Thiruvananthapuram District including certain bank deposits. He was unmarried. He died in Singapore on 10.8.1985, while in hospital. The only surviving legal heirs are the appellant herein, the direct sister and the second respondent, his direct brother.

(3.) A person claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the first respondent, attempted to trespass into the properties held by the deceased in Trivandrum and enjoyed by the appellant. The claim was that the first respondent had been a legatee in terms of a Will executed by the deceased in Singapore and the first respondent had obtained a probate from the court in Singapore. Therefore, he did have the right over the property. This was resisted and it gave rise to O.S. No. 62/86 on the file of the Munsiffs Court, Varkala at the instance of the appellant where the first respondent herein through his power of attorney was impleaded. Later, it is disclosed that the first respondent himself filed another suit, O.S. No. 92/86 in the same court claiming declaration of title over the immovable properties stated to be enjoyed by the appellant herein on death of her brother at Singapore, making the appellant a party. The former suit was being resisted by the first respondent on the strength of the Will stated to be executed by the deceased and got probated by the first respondent. The trumpcard in the suit filed by the 1st respondent was also this Will and the probate obtained from the Singapore Court. That Will was disputed by the appellant, who figured as a defendant in O.S. No. 92/86. It was while such controversy centered around the said Will and its probate was going on in the Munsiffs Court, the first respondent, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 92/86, filed O.P.(LA) No. 152/88 before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking letters of administration, in terms of S.228 of the Act. In the said petition, no respondent had been impleaded and the petition discloses that there were no respondents. Later, letters of administration was granted by that District Court. It was produced in O.S. No. 92/86. It was at that time the appellant / defendant in the suit came to know of the existence of letters of administration. Thereupon, the appellant moved an application under S.263 of the Act. Invoking the ground available under Explanations (a) and (b) of the said Section to get the letters of administration revoked. A contention was raised before that court that such a petition was not maintainable at all. The letters of administration already granted was not in terms of S.232. It did not cover the entire properties forming the subject matter of the Will. It was also contended that the provision in S.263 was not available to revoke letters of administration granted in respect of a Will executed and probated from a foreign court and that the general provision contained in S.263 for revocation of letters of administration was not available in respect of the letters of administration granted under S.228 of the Act. These contentions were found in favour of the first respondent, the legatee, by the District Court and the application under S.263 was dismissed. Therefore this appeal.