SWAMINATHAN & ORS. versus ALANKAMONY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 878 · Decided: 09-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
878
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 878
878
SWAMINATHAN & ORS.
v.
ALANKAMONY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
(Civil Appeal No.798-799 of 2013)
March 09, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Succession Act, 1925:s. 263 – Revocation of letters of
administration – When – Held: As per s. 263, the grant of letters of
administration may be revoked for “just cause” – Explanation (a)
states that just cause would be deemed to exist where the proceedings
were defective in substance – Illustration (ii) u/s. 263 deals with a
case where “the grant was made without citing parties who ought
to have been cited” – On facts, the brother of the testator filed
application for revocation of letters of administration on the ground
that all the legal heirs were not impleaded in the proceedings for
the grant of letters of administration – High Court was right in
holding that a just cause existed for revocation of Letters of
Administration – Thus, the order of the High Court does not call for
interference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 798-
799 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.11.2008 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras at Madurai Bench in CMA No.1004 of 2002
and dated 21.07.2009 in Review Application (MD) No.08 of 2009.
A. Mariaputham, Sr. Adv., Anurag Dayal Mathur, Avneesh
Arputham, M/s Arputham Aruna And Co., Advs. for the Appellants.
Beno Bencigar, M. A. Chinnasamy, Advs. for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
1. The challenge in the present appeals is to an order dated
05.11.2008 whereby an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 (for short, ‘the Act’) filed by the brother of the testator for
revocation of Letters of Administration dated 09.03.2002 was allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
879
2. The appellants sought Letters of Administration of a registered
Will deed dated 23.08.1991 said to have been executed by one
Thankappan Nadar in favour of the appellant – brother of the testator
and his two sons. After the grant of Letters of Administration, another
brother of testator filed an application for revocation of the Letters of
Administration on the ground that all the legal heirs were not impleaded
in the proceedings for the grant of Letters of Administration. The Civil
Court dismissed the application for revocation but the order was set
aside in appeal. Aggrieved, the legatee is in appeal before this Court.
3. Drawing our attention to the difference in the language
employed between Section 276 and Section 278, the learned counsel for
the appellants contended that what was filed by the appellants was a
petition under Section 276(1) and that therefore, the requirement to make
a mention about the details of the family and other relatives of the
deceased, contained in Section 278(1) cannot be imported into Section
276. According to the learned counsel, the petition filed by the appellants
was one for the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.
It was not a petition filed under Section 278(1).
4. In order to appreciate the above contention, it is necessary to
present Section 276(1) and Section 278(1) in a table as follows:-
SWAMINATHAN v. ALANKAMONY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
5. But unfortunately for the appellants, the catch is not to be found
in the distinction between Section 276 and Section 278. It is to be found
in Section 263 which reads as follows:-
263. Revocation or annulment for just cause. —The grant of
probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled
for just cause.
Explanation. —Just cause shall be deemed to exist where—
(a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in
substance; or
(b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false
suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something
material to the case; or
(c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation
of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though
such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or
(d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through
circumstances; or
(e) the person to whom the grant was made has wilfully
and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory
or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that Chapter an
inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect.
Illustrations
(i) The Court by which the grant was made had no
jur

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.