REVATHAMMA Vs. HAMSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Secun-derabad, who considered that Rule 46 of the Rules framed by the Hyderabad High Court under the Indian Succession Act (Act XXXIX of 1925) in respect of applications for probate, letters of administration and succession certificates has become applicable, and that therefore the petitioner herein having failed to enter a caveat should be discharged and the petition for the issue of letters of administration should be proceeded with irrespective of the objections raiseci by the petitioner herein by filing a counter.

(2.) Briefly, the facts leading to this petition are these: The five daughters of C. G. Srinivasulu Naidu filed O. P. No. 76/2/56 for the grant of letters of administration under Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act in the Court of the District Judge, Secunderabad for the property of Mrs. Radhahai their mother. These petitioners in O. P. No. 76/2/56 impleaded Mrs. Revathamma their step sister being the daughter oi C. G. Srinivasulu Naidu, by his first wife. In the schedule annexed to this petition, two houses standing in the name of the father of these petitioners and of the respondent have been shown as items 1 and 2. The only other item concerns the jewels of the value of Rs. 500.00 which belonged to the deceased Mrs. Radhahai. This petition was filed on 22-6-56 and the respondent entered appearance on 18-7-58 in response to the notice issued by the Court. The respondent filed a counter on 10-8-1956 denying the title of the deceased Mrs. Radhabai to the two houses and alleging that they belong to her father late C. G. Srinivasulu Naidu, thereby denying any interest for the late Mrs. Radhabai in those houses, The respondent therein therefore prayed for the dismissal of the petition for letters of administration. But the petitioners contended that Mrs. Ravathamma is bound to enter a caveat and file her objections supported by an affidavit within fourteen days ot the caveat being lodged. This objection is contested by Revathamma by pointing out that the petition filed for the issue of letters of administration and notice issued by the Court were not according to law and the forms prescribed, that as she was impleaded as a party and given notice she could neither file a caveat nor a further affidavit, that inasmuch as she was not admitting the title of the deceased Radhabai to the houses admittedly in the name of her father and that allegations of the type of benami nature while applying for letters of administration are not to be entertained by the Court, the procedure adopted by her is the only proper course to be taken in the circumstances of the case, She took up the stand that though she is not bound to enter a caveat, she should be heard or discharged thereby making it clear that the proceedings ef the District Court should have no adverse effect on any future proceedings she might choose to take. The learned District Judge in a brief order contented himself by merely stating that Rules 43 and 44 do not admit of the interpretation that a respondent who does not admit the property to be that of the deceased is under no duty to conform to the procedure prescribing for entering a caveat. The present revision petition is against this order. It will be convenient to refer hereafter to Ravethamma as the petitioner and the other five daughters ot C. G. Srinivasulu Naidu as the respondents.

(3.) Mr. V. V. L. Narasihma Rao appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon the language ot Rules 22 and 31 of the Hyderabad High Court pertaining to the Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act in regard to the notice to next-off-kin and citation respectively and referred to Form No. 192 wherein it has been mentioned that the citation is issued calling only upon the person who should claim to have any interest in the estate to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate (or Letters of Administration). The point raised by the learned advocate is that the adding ot a party to a petition for letters of administration and giving notice to that respondent separately does not alter the situation and make it obligatory tor tho named respondent to file a caveat even though the respondent disclaims the interest of the deceased in the properties to which Letters of Administration have been prayed for. It is further urged that the entering of a caveat, having regard to the form in which it has been made, would, in essence, make it appear that the objector is acquiescing in the alleged interests ot the deceased in the property. The objector, having been added as a party, comes in only to state that the properties in respect of which the Letters ot Administration have been asked for are not the properties of the deceased. In support of these contentions, reference is made to the caveat prescribed in Form No. 202 which is in the following terms: