RANMAYA GAORANGINI Vs. BETTY MAHBERT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred from an order refusing to revoke a grant of letters of administration. One Mrs. Benjamin, a native Christian, died leaving three sisters, three nieces by a predeceased sister, and two nephews and three nieces by a predeceased brother. Betty Mahbert who is one of the daughters of the predeceased sister obtained letters of administration from the District Judge on the 3 January 1924 and she is the principal respondent in this appeal. Ranmaya Gaorangini alias Koili alias Rasidunnissa who is a sister of the said Mrs. Benjamin, on the 23 July 1924, applied for revocation of the grant and her application being refused has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The application for revocation filed on the 23rd. July 1924 was based upon various grounds of which two only have been pressed in this appeal. The first of these grounds is to the effect that there were two minor sons of Rajman, the deceased brother of Mrs. Benjamin, named Dhan Bahadur and Harka Bahadur, living under the guardianship of their mother, Hiramaya; but no guardian ad litem had been appointed in respect of the said minors and the citation on Hiramaya that was issued by the Court was not sufficient as she was not a properly constituted guardian competent to represent the said minors.

(3.) The second ground asserts that Betty Mahbert in her affidavit of assets had fraudulently undervalued them by omitting to mention a sum of Rs. 541 which stood to the credit of the deceased in the Forest Department and by not showing the valuation of a certain jote which belonged to the deceased. To these a third ground has been added, drawn from a petition filed on the 16 September 1924 by the appellant when the revocation proceedings were pending in the Court below by which she amended or supplemented her original petition for revocation. This ground is to the effect that there were three daughters of Rajman named Mankala, Kamalmaya and Sibey, and that the grant had been made without issuing any citation on them. A fourth ground has also been urged complaining of the propriety of the order passed by the District Judge by which he rejected the appellant's application for adjournment on the day that the case was heard and disposed of.