RAM PARIKHA RAI Vs. SHEO PUJAN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision is directed against an order dated 23-7-1965 of the court below dismissing the petitioners' application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act hereinafter called the Act, on the ground that the application for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted to the Opposite Party was premature and hence not maintainable. The relevant facts as stated in the order under revision are these. There was one Most. Tapeshwari, wife of Inderjit Rai, who died issueless on 13th February, 1957. But before her death she is said to have executed a will in favour of Sheo Pujan Rai, opposite party in the civil revision, on 1-4-1955. Sheo Pujan Rai filed an application on 16-12-59 for the grant of the Probate of the will. This was registered as Probate case No. 82 of 59. On 25-1-1961, as it appears. Probate was not granted but Letters of Administration were granted in the terms- "Let the Letters of Administration be granted to the applicant with copy of the will annexed on his executing a bond of Rs. 14,000/-." The draft security bond was not filed and in the meantime Revocation case No. 26 of 1961 was filed by the petitioner on 28-4-1961 with a prayer to revoke the Letters of Administration granted to Sheo Pujan Rai, for the reasons and on the grounds mentioned in the petition.

(2.) Accepting the contention raised on behalf of the opposite party at this stage that an application for revocation is only maintainable after the Letters of Administration had actually been issued to the applicant and that the grant of the Letters of Administration is not complete by merely passing an order for the grant, but it is complete only when the Letters of Administration are actually handed over to the applicant, and hence the petition filed prior to the furnishing of the security bond and handing over the Letters of Administration is not maintainable, the court below has held that the application filed by the petitioner is premature and not maintainable.

(3.) In my judgment, the court below has committed an error of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 263 of the Act on the ground it has been done. Chapter I of Part IX of the Act providing for the grant of Probate and Letters of Administration in Sections 218 to 236 of the Act, does not make any distinction between an order for grant of Probate or Letters of Administration and the, actual grant in the sense of handing over the Probate or the Letters of Administration. The main and the substantial thing in the grant is an order granting the Probate or Letters of Administration. The actual grant or handing over of the Probate or Letters of Administration which follows under Section 289 or 290 of the Act is consequential to the order of grant. The security bond is asked for under Section 291 of the Act but that by itself does not make the order of grant or the grant itself conditional upon the furnishing of the security bond. Of course the Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased person shall not be granted under the seal of the court in accordance with Section 290 of the Act untill and unless - the security bond is furnished. The administrator will not be able to administer the estate of the deceased unless and until he is armed with the sealed Letters of Administration.