JAGANNATH SAHOO Vs. BALARAM SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises in this Civil Revision is whether Civil Judge (Senior Division) has jurisdiction to revoke a letter of administration granted under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in favour of one of the parties, on an application filed by another party.

(2.) FACTS of the case are not disputed. The Petitioners were granted letter of administration in their favour vide Order Dated 17.12.1990 passed by the earned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri with respect to a will executed on 05.01.1985 by one Harichandan Sahu. About four years thereafter, one Balaram Sahu claiming to be the son of late Harichandan Sahu initiated Misc. Case No. 300 of 1994 praying to revoke the grant on certain grounds. The original legatees were noticed. They appeared and raised objections that Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri has no jurisdiction to revoke the grant. The Opp. Party filed objection to such petition.

(3.) IN assailing this order the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners took pains to submit that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 envisages the powers of the District Judge both to grant and revoke probate or letter of administration. He, further, argues that though the Civil Judge (Senior Division) has been conferred with the jurisdiction to grant probate or letter of administration, the power of revoking the same has not been expressly conferred on him and therefore, the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) do not have the requisite jurisdiction to decide an application for revoking a probate or letter of administration. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners prays that the impugned order be set aside.