MARIAKUTTY Vs. SOPHIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent in O. P. (Testamentary) 24/88, filed under S. 192 and 193 of THE Indian Succession Act is the revision petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 are the petitioners whereas respondents 3, 4 and 5 are the respondents in the O. P.

(2.) THE petition has been allowed by the order under challenge.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the court below, in not conducting the enquiry contemplated under S. 193 before summons to the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 were issued, has committed an error of jurisdiction warranting interference with the order under challenge. In support of this contention he relied on two rulings; one of this court in Kunhilakshmi v. Mrs. R. Rugmini (A. I. R. 1960 Ker. 47) and the other of the Madhya Pradesh high Court in Vikram Singh v. Krishna Singh (A. I. R. 1979 M. P. 145 ). Quoting the principle laid down by this court in Kunhilakshmi's case with approval the madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that any order passed under S. 192 to 194 without following the procedure prescribed under S. 193 is liable to be declared bad in law. In view of the fact that no such enquiry was conducted in this case before the summons was issued, the learned counsel submits, the order is liable to be discharged. THEre cannot be any dispute about this proposition.