IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10252 of 2010(O)
1. V.B.PREM NAZIR, S/O.V.A.BHASKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. J.GEETHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. RADHA BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 61 YEARS,
3. ARUN BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ
For Respondent :SRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :06/07/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
W.P(C) No.10252 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 06th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In respect of Ext.P2, Will dated 24.05.2008 allegedly
executed by one Dr.T.K. Ramachandran, petitioner, claiming to be
the legatee under that Will sought Letters of Administration and
filed L.A. O.P. No.1405 of 2008 in the court of learned District
Judge, Ernakulam under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act
(for short, “the Act”). Learned District Judge as per Ext.P4, order
allowed the application and issued Letters of Administration.
According to the petitioner none of the respondents in the said
proceeding contested the application. Respondent No.1 is the
divorced wife of the late Dr.T.K. Ramachandran (Ext.P3 is the
order of Family Court dated 31.01.2000 granting divorce). After
issue of Letters of Administration respondent No.1 filed Ext.P6,
application seeking review of Ext.P4, order issuing Letters of
Administration on various grounds mentioned therein. There was
also Ext.P7, application for stay. Learned District Judge passed
Exts.P10 and P11 orders. As per Ext.P10 order, a direction was
issued to the Bank authorities to produce “related account and
W.P(C) No.10252 of 2010
-: 2 :-
details” and as per Ext.P11, order learned District Judge directed
that “Bank records stand in the name of both or joint account.
The party who does not agree with the records can take steps to
prove the nature of account by examining bank officials”. Learned
Senior Advocate for petitioner contends that Exts.P10 and P11
orders are beyond the scope of jurisdiction of learned District
Judge while considering an application for issue of Letters of
Administration or for its review in that said provision does not
contemplate an enquiry as to the title of the parties covered by
the Will under challenge. As such learned District Judge was not
correct in passing Ext.P10 and P11 orders as if an enquiry was
being conducted into the title over amount in deposit in the joint
account of respondent No.1 and the late Ramachandran. Learned
Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the decision in Pappoo
v. Kuruvila (1994 [2] KLT 278). It is contended by learned
counsel for respondent No.1 that grant of Letters of
Administration was wrong in that in spite of that application being
opposed by respondent No.1 it was not converted into a suit as
required under the Act and there are other grounds also justifying
review of Ext.P4, order. According to the learned counsel it is
pursuant to Ext.P6, application for review and as is required
W.P(C) No.10252 of 2010
-: 3 :-
considering the enquiry into the matter that learned District Judge
passed Exts.P10 and P11 orders.
2. It would appear that there is some dispute regarding
entitlement to the amount lying in the joint account of respondent
No.1 and the late Ramachandran. Petitioner has a contention
that the late Ramachandran had two flats which were disposed
of and the amount was deposited in the joint account after he
divorced respondent No.1.
3. It is not necessary for me to go into that controversy
since decisions are aplenty that while entertaining application
under Sec.278 of the Act for grant of Probate or Letters of
Administration or for a review of the order granting Probate or
Letters of Administration, the court is not required to go into title
of properties dealt with in the Will. What the court is concerned
with is only whether document produced is the last Will and
Testament of the testator duly executed and attested by him as
required under law or whether review sought for is allowable.
Decisions of this Court in I.M. Madhavi v. Sree
Ramavarma (AIR 1969 Kerala 256) and Narayana Pillai
v. Krishna Pillai (1985 KLJ 145) and Pappoo v. Kuruvila
(Supra) are to that effect. Hence learned District Judge could not
W.P(C) No.10252 of 2010
-: 4 :-
have gone into an enquiry as to title of amount in deposit in the
joint account. That was alien for consideration of the matter
pending before learned District Judge. Hence Exts.P10 and P11
orders cannot stand and are liable to be set aside. I make it clear
that if respondent No.1 is apprehensive as to the entitlement of
amount in deposit which respondent No.1 claims for herself, it is
open to her to initiate other appropriate proceeding as provided
under law.
Resultantly, Writ Petition succeeds. Exhibits P10 and P11
orders are set aside without prejudice to the right of respondent
No.1 to seek other appropriate remedies in respect of the amount
in deposit in appropriate Forum and as provided under law. I
make it clear that setting aside of Exts.P10 and P11, orders has no
bearing on maintainability of the application for review pending
consideration before the learned District Judge and that
application will take its course.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv