BAI UJAMBAI GOVINDJI Vs. HARAKCHAND GOVINDJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for the letters of administration of the joint family properties and credits standing in the name of Govindji Khushal is filed by his widow Ujambai for the use and benefit of her minor son Amratlal and limited to the period of his minority. In the petition it is alleged that the deceased left a writing dated May 1, 1922, purporting to be his will, but the same was revoked, and he died intestate. In the alternative it is stated that on the birth of Amritlal, which took place after the date of the alleged will, the deceased and his minor son Amritlal constituted a joint and undivided Hindu family and the said will was, therefore, void and inoperative in law. In para. 5 of the petition it is stated that Harakhchand, the first caveator, who is the other son of the deceased, separated from his father before his death and the release passed by Harakhchand is put in as exhibit A. It is contended that on the death of the deceased Amritlal became absolutely entitled to the joint family properties and credits as the sole surviving coparcener. In para. 6 the petitioner says that all the properties and credits which the deceased died possessed of or was entitled to were mentioned in the schedule to the petition and the petitioner expected to realise the same.

(2.) For making a petition in this form the petitioner relies on the language of Secs.211, 250, 255, 256 and 257 of the Indian Succession Act. It is pointed out that under Section 211 although there may be an executor or an administrator, to whom a grant may be issued by the Court, the joint family property which would pass by survivorship to some other person would not be vested in the executor or administrator. It is also contended that under Section 250, on the death of the deceased, no beneficial interest remained in him and, therefore, the Court is competent to grant a representation relating to such property. In the alternative it is pointed out that under Secs.256 and 257 there is no objection to the Court granting letters of administration to the estate of the deceased with the exception of his separate property which may pass, if at all, to the executor or administrator who may choose to apply for representation on the footing of the alleged will. The application is made in this form because the applicant Ujambai is the mother of Amritlal and is named an executor in the alleged will. Harakchand filed the first caveat. On realising that he had no interest in the estate at a later stage, his daughter Jaya, who is a legatee under the will, filed the second caveat.

(3.) The first objection taken on behalf of the caveators is that under rule 620 of the High Court Rules (O. S.), 1930, the application is not in order. Rule 620 runs as follows :- No person who renounces probate of the will or letters of administration of the property of a deceased person in one character shall not without the leave of the Judge take out representation to the same deceased in another character.