[Indian Succession Act] Can Courts Grant/Revoke Probates Or Letters Of Administration Without Govt Notificiation? Kerala HC Refers To Division Bench

Justice Sathish Ninan by relying upon Sections 57 and 264 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 observed that no notification was needed for granting and revoking probates or letters of administration when the wills and codicils were made on or after 01.01.1927 by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain.

“On a reading of Section 57 it is clear that the Section applies throughout the State of Kerala to all Wills and Codicils made on or after 01.01.1927. Section 57 thus being applicable, a notification by the State Government in terms of Section 264(2) of the Act referred to supra is not necessary to confer jurisdiction on the District Judge for the grant and revoke of probates and letters of administration.”, the Court stated.

In the facts of the case, the appellant who is a Hindu has approached the Court challenging the order of a District Judge dismissing his petition for issuance of letters of administration by relying upon Natarajan (supra). The will in this matter was executed in the year 2021.

Section 264 pertains to the power of jurisdiction of the district judge in granting and revoking probates and letters of administration. Section 264 (2) states that Courts beyond the limits of the Calcutta, Madras and Bombay cannot receive applications when the deceased was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain or an exempted person for the issuance of probate or letters of administration without an enabling notification by the State Government.

The Court observed that no such notification was necessary for Christians since they were not included in Section 264. Further, it observed that Section 264 was not applicable where Section 57 of the Act applies.

It observed that Section 57 of the Act states that no notification from the state government was necessary for conferring jurisdiction upon Courts for granting and revoking probate or letters of administration for the wills and codicils made on or after 01.01.1927 in Kerala if it was made by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jaina.

The Court also referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Triloki Nath v. Kanhiya Lal and Ors (1978).

Accordingly, the Court referred the matter to the Division Bench.

“In the light of the above, I am of the opinion that the decision in Natarajan's case (supra) requires consideration by a Division Bench.”

Counsel for the appellant: Advocates P B Krishnan, P B Subramanyan, Sabu George, B Anusree, Manu Vyasan Peter, Deepa Noble

Counsel for the respondents: Advocates K S Hariharaputhran, Pinku Mariam Jose, Anil Kumar T P

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 45

Case title: Lekshmi M V Sudhamony Amma

Case number: MFA(Succession) No. 3 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Order