Serving Citation To Next Of Kin Not Mandatory In Petition For Letters Of Administration Of Estate Not Fully Administered: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that service of citation to the next of kin is not mandatory in a petition filed under Sections 258 and 259 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for the grant of Letters of Administration of an estate not fully administered, and the Court may dispense with such citation in appropriate cases. The Court observed that when probate of a will has already been...
The Bombay High Court has held that service of citation to the next of kin is not mandatory in a petition filed under Sections 258 and 259 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for the grant of Letters of Administration of an estate not fully administered, and the Court may dispense with such citation in appropriate cases. The Court observed that when probate of a will has already been granted after considering objections of the next of kin, a subsequent petition under Sections 258 and 259 merely seeks appointment of a new representative to administer the unadministered portion of the estate and does not reopen issues already settled at the stage of the original grant.
A division bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla was hearing an appeal filed by the legal heirs challenging the order of a Single Judge dismissing their miscellaneous petition seeking revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration. The appellants also sought to challenge the earlier order of the Court by which service of citation on the next of kin had been dispensed with in a testamentary petition filed under Sections 258 and 259 of the Succession Act. The dispute arose from the estate of Narsingrao Pupala, who had executed a will in 1974 appointing executors. Following the death of the surviving executrix before the estate was fully administered, a Testamentary Petition seeking Letters of Administration to administer the remaining portion of the estate was filed, on which the Court dispensed with service of citation on the next of kin and granted the Letters of Administration on 17 September 2009. The petition filed to revoke the probate and the grant of the Letters of Administration was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
The Court analysed the scheme of Sections 258 and 259 and held that these provisions deal with a situation where the Executor, to whom Probate has been granted, has died, leaving a part of the testator's estate unadministered. The Court noted that Section 258 provides that a new representative may be appointed for the purpose of administering part of the estate in certain circumstances. Section 259 provides that in granting Letters of Administration of an estate not fully administered, the Court shall be guided by the same Rules as applied to original grants.
The Court observed that when such an application is made, the will has already been probated and the objections of the next of kin would have been considered during those earlier proceedings. Hence, the petition under Sections 258 and 259 does not involve adjudication on the validity of the will but merely concerns the appointment of another representative to administer the portion of the estate that remained unadministered after the death of the executor. It observed:
“… since all objections from the next of kin, if any, would have been considered whilst granting the original Probate, the serving of a citation to the next of kin can be dispensed with in a Petition filed under Sections 258 and 259.”
On the issue of delay, the Court observed that the appellant failed to produce any evidence of the alleged cause of delay, namely, alleged harassment by Pratap.
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court held that the challenge raised after several years lacked merit and was also barred by unexplained delay.
Case Title: Nandkumar Narsingrao Pupala & Ors. v. Dr. Pratapsingrao Pupala [Appeal No. 138 of 2024 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 18 of 2018 in Petition No. 445 of 2008]