L H M GREGORY Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S. 241 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the Act) for grant of letters of administration, with the Will annexed for the administration of the estate of Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey deceased, for the use and benefit of the absent executor, Lt. Col. L. H. M. Gregory, the sole-executor so named by late Ms. Lisbey as per her last Will and testament dated 22-6l978. The Executor of the Will Lt. Col. Gregory is stated to be presently residing in London, as such, his general attorney Kamaljit Singh Grewal (hereinafter called the petitioner) has filed this petition for the use and benefit of his principal Lt. Col. Gregory.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that late Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey widow of late Mr. Norman Douglas Lisbey was resident of Dunloe Estate, near Deepak Project, Shimla and she died on 17-10-1980 at Shimla Sanitorium and Hospital, Chaura Maidan, Shimla. During her life time and at the time of death she was an Anglican Protestant Christian, as such governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 with respect to the property left by her in India. It is further alleged that as per her last Will, which she had executed on 22-6-1978 in presence of Rev. Brother M. A. O'. Sullivan, the then Principal of St. Edward's school, Shimla and the petitioner, she had appointed Lt. Col. Gregory as her sole executor. As per the Will Ms. Lisbey had bequeathed her property Dunloe Estates consisting of Dunloe House, Dunloe Lodge with Out Houses and all the vacant land with trees etc. to Lt. Col. Gregory to be the sole beneficiary and had desired that the property will be used in fostering friendly relations between the people of India, Great Britain and other Commonwealth countries. The amount of the Estates had been assessed to Rs. 2,34,936.95 as given in Schedule 'B' attached to the petition. It is also stated that Ms. Lisbey had left no debts.

(3.) In the petition Ms. Irene Heysham and Ms. Doris Heysham were impleaded as party respondents 2 and 3 and it is stated in the petition that they claimed themselves to be relations of Ms. Lisbey, though this fact was not admitted by the petitioner. One Smt. Sundri Devi was also impleaded as party respondent No. 4 on the allegations that she as well as respondents 2 and 3 were interested to contest the claim of the petitioner, as to his information they had propounded another Will. Lastly, it is submitted that the estate duty on the estate of Ms. Lisbey would be paid as and when the letters of administration are ordered to be granted.