MT SHEOPATI KUER Vs. RAMAKANT DIKSHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decision of the learned-District Judge of Saran, dated 1-2-1944, by which he has refused the appellant's application for revocation of the grant of letters of administration made in favour of some of the respondents on 30-4-1900, in respect of the estate of one Harihar Dikshit. The main question which arises for decision, is if there is just cause for revoking the grant of letters of administration as contemplated by Section 263, Succession Act.

(2.) It is necessary to state, briefly, the facts out of which the appeal has arisen. The appellant is the daughter of Pandit Harihar Dikshit by his wife Mt. Rajbansi Kuer. It appears that Harihar Dikshit first made a will on 9-9-1898, in favour of his wife, Mt. Rajbansi Kuer, and his daughter-in-law Mt. Dhanrajo Kuer, who was the widow of a pre-deceased son of Harihar Dikshit. Harihar Dikshit subsequently revoked this will, and executed another will on 20-9-1898, at Benares, where he had gone at the time of his last illness. This will was in favour of his own brother Ram Sewak Dikshit, father of some of the respondents. This second will was registered at Benares on 21-9-1898, the same day on which Harihar Dikshit died. Mt. Rajbansi Kuer first filed an application for probate which was numbered as case No. 80 of 1898. Ram Sewak Dikshit also applied for probate of the second will, and his case was numbered 177 of 1898. Mt. Rajbansi Kuer, mother of the present appellant, contested the application of Ram Sewak Dikshit. The two cases were amalgamated and tried together. The Court rejected the application of Rajbansi Kuer and granted letters of administration with the copy of the will annexed to some of the respondents on 30-4-1900, Ramsewak having died during the pendency of the probate proceedings. There were two appeals to the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, the High Court which had jurisdiction at the time, and the appeals were dismissed. The grant in favour of some of the respondents was upheld.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the appellant is the daughter of Harihar Dikshit. The main grounds on which the appellant founded her application for revocation are mentioned in paras. 12(vi) and 12 (vii) of her application which read as follows: (vi) That in the petition for probate Ram Sewak Dikshit did not mention the existence of the petitioner, then a mere minor, and no general or special citations were issued or served on the petitioner or anybody in the locality. (vii) That no guardian of the petitioner was appointed in that proceeding and it was illegal and defective in substance from the beginning to the end. It was also alleged by the appellant that both wills dated 9-9-1898 and 209-1898, were forged and fabricated.