NATHUNI THAKUR Vs. MOSTT. MANBHARNA KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises oat of an application filed by the appellant under Sec. 263 of the Indian Succession Act, hereinafter to be called "the Act," for revocation of the grant of letters of administration to Mostt. Manbharna Kuer, the respondent. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, may be briefly stated as follows. One Jaipragas Rai of village Bara had executed a Will dated the 30th of April, 1922. He died on the 15th of Kartik, 1340 Fasli leaving extensive properties all covered by the Will. Under the terms of the will Somaro Kuer, the widow of the testator, and Mosst. Manbharna Kuer, the widow of his nephew, were given only a life interest in the properties left by the testator. After the death of the two widows, aforesaid, Nathuni Thakur, the Bhagina of the testator, would get four annas share in the properties of the deceased and the remaining twelve annas would go to a deity installed by the testator in village Bara of which the appellant and his heirs and legal representative are to be the Motawallis. Somaro Kuer being dead, the letters of administration were granted to Mosst. Manbharna Kuer, the respondent, on the 20th of September, 1939. She is admittedly in possession of the properties covered by the Will since then.

(2.) On the 31st of May, 1962, Nathuni Thakur filed the application under Sec. 263 of the Act for revocation of the grant of letters of administration to the respondent on the following two grounds, namely, (1) that the respondent has failed to furnish accounts or inventory within six months of the grant of letters of administration as ordered by the Court, and (2) that she has been mismanaging the properties and has wasted them in several ways to the detriment of the interest of the appellant and the deity, who are the absolute legalese under the Will. Mosst. Manbharna Kuer filed a petition of objection in reply to the application filed by Nathuni Thakur under Sec. 263 of the Act. In that petition she alleged that Nathuni Thakur had been looking after the affairs and administration of the properties since the letters of administration were granted to her. She also made an allegation to the effect that Nathuni Thakur filed the petition for revocation of the letters of administration because she is keeping in her house her husband's sister Dulhin Batma, who was married to Sidh Nath Rai of village Ujiar in the district of Ballia, along with her two sons and they are helping her and looking after her comforts. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner (appellant) and four witnesses were examined on behalf of the objector (the respondent). Some documents were also filed on behalf of each party. On the question of the failure by the respondent to submit accounts and inventory within the time given by the Court, the learned Additional District judge has taken the view that the objection must be deemed to have been waived as such a grievance was made after a lapse of more than twenty years from the date of the grant of letters of administration. On the question of mismanagement, he recorded his finding in these words:

(3.) Mr. Kailash Roy appearing for the appellant did not press the appeal on the first ground, namely, failure on the part of the respondent to submit accounts and inventory within the time granted by the Court. On the second ground be raised twofold submissions. In the first place, he submitted that the enumeration of the circumstances in the Explanation to Sec. 263, which would make out a 'just cause' for the revocation of the letters of administration, is not exhaustive and as such the mismanagement and wasting of the properties under the Will to the detriment of the absolute legatees under the Will may be held to be a 'just cause' for the revocation of the grant. Alternatively, he contended that in view of the clear finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the respondent, who is an old woman aged about 60 years, is not in a position to manage the vast properties in which she has only a life interest under the terms of the Will, the instant case comes within Clause (d) of the Explanation to Sec. 263 of the Act.