RALLABANDI VENKATARATNAM Vs. RALLABANDI RAJA RAM MOHANA RAO, MINOR BY HIS NEXT FRIEND MALLADI VISVANATHA SASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The first question argued before us relates to the genuineness and validity of the will of one Appa Raw. He died on the 5th July 1908 and a will was executed by him on the same date, then an application for probate was made, but as no executor was designated in the will, letters of administration with the will annexed were granted on the 15th April 1909. The citations were properly served as required by law and evidence was taken as to the due and proper execution of the will. An application was after- wards made by some of the parties for revocation of the letters of administration. That application was refused and the order was confirmed in appeal. It also appears that a suit was instituted by the second defendant in 1909 (O.S. No. 79 of 1909) seeking for a declaration that the adoption of the plaintiff by the 6th defendant, the validity of which depended on the authority granted by the will, was invalid. That suit was dismissed by the first court and the decree was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court and in second appeal by this Court. It is now argued on behalf of the appellants that they should have an opportunity of showing that the will was not genuine and that the testator was not of sound and disposing mind when he signed the will. It is contended that a distinction ought to be drawn between a grant of probate and a grant of letters of administration with the will annexed so far as it affects the proof of the genuineness and validity of a will. The procedure both with respect to an application for probate and with reference to letters of administration with the will annexed is substantially identical and there is no reason for drawing a distinction between the two. The law is very clearly stated in Halsbury s Laws of England Volume XIV p. 210 in these words: " Probate and letters of administration with a will annexed are conclusive evidence of the factum and validity of the will." The case Whicker v. Hume 7 H.L.C. 124 lays down the law to the same effect. We think, therefore, that the question cannot be reopened at this stage.

(2.) THE rest of the judgment deals with matters not material to this report.