[MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] MOOT COURT, 2020Be, Exams of Physics

Download [MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT] MOOT COURT, 2020Be and more Exams Physics in PDF only on Docsity! 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 276 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION HEMANT GUPTA; V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 798-799 OF 2013; 9 March, 2022 SWAMINATHAN & ORS. VERSUS ALANKAMONY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Indian Succession Act, 1925; Sections 299, 279,276, 263 - Revocation of Letters of Administration - Appeal against High Court judgment which allowed 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 - Dismissed - The catch is not to be found in the distinction between Section 276 and Section 278. It is to be found in Section 263 - Illustration (ii) under Section 263 deals with a case where "the grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited". For Appellant(s) Mr. A. Mariaputham, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anurag Dayal Mathur, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv. M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Beno Bencigar, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR O R D E R 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. 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: 2 Section 276 Section 278 276. Petition for probate.— (1) Application for probate or for letters of administration, with the Will annexed, shall be made by a petition distinctly written in English or in the language in ordinary use in proceedings before the Court in which the application is made, with the Will or, in the cases mentioned in sections 237, 238 and 239, a copy, draft, or statement of the contents thereof, annexed, and stating— (a) the time of the testator’s death, (b) that the writing annexed is his last Will and testament, (c) that it was duly executed, (d) the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioner’s hands, and (e) when the application is for probate, that the petitioner is the executor named in the Will. (2)… (3)… 278. Petition for letters of administration.—(1) Application for letters of administration shall be made by petition distinctly written as aforesaid and stating— (a) the time and place of the deceased’s death; (b) the family or other relatives of the deceased, and their respective residences; (c) the right in which the petitioner claims; (d) the amount of assets which are likely to come to the petitioner’s hands; (e) when the application is to the District Judge, that the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode, or had some property, situate within the jurisdiction of the Judge; and (f) when the application is to a District Delegate, that the deceased at the time of his death had a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of such Delegate. (2) … 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