MADHAVI ALIAS AMMU v. HIS HIGHNESS SREE RAMAVARMA — 1968 DIGILAW 78 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. This is an application for Letter of Administration with the will annexed in respect of the assets and estate of the late Maharaja of Cochin, Sri Ramavarma, alias Ratna Varma Pareekshit Thampuran, who died on the 12th November 1964, at the Hill Palace, Tripunithura, within the jurisdiction of this court. The petitioner is the widow of the deceased. The deceased left no son or daughter or other lineal descendants or mother; and the petitioner is the sole heir of the deceased under the Hindu Succession Act by which he was governed. The deceased executed a will dated 3rd May 1952 under which he made two specific bequests of the properties described in schedules A and B of the will in favour respectively, of the petitioner and the widow of a deceased nephew, who was formerly the Palace Controller. The properties covered by these schedules in the will were later assigned to the legatees under documents dated 8 41954 and 29 41954 with rights of absolute ownership and immediate enjoyment. The will constituted the petitioner a residuary legatee of all other properties undisposed of by the testator at the time of his death. The personal assets of the deceased in respect of which Letters of Administration have been prayed for, are particularly described in Annexure A of the affidavit of valuation. Letters of Administration are prayed for in respect of this said assets. 2. A Caveat has been entered by the present Maharaja of Cochin. That the petitioner is the lawful heir of the deceased is not denied. That the petitioner is entitled to Letters of Administration with the will annexed in respect of the properties and assets covered by the will, is also not disputed. But on behalf of the Caveator, objection has been raised to the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the assets mentioned in Annexure A to the affidavit. The Caveator's objection is that these belonged to the Stanam of the late Maharaja of Cochin, that the Maharaja had only a life estate in these assets but no disposing power, and that the Caveator as the successor in stanam of the late Maharaja is entitled to succeed to, and to deal with, these assets which form part of what has been described as the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate. Alternatively it is contended that the Maharaja of Cochin is a corporation sole, that the properties vested in the corporation sole and that the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate of which the assets in Annexure A form but a part is attached to the ruler ship of Cochin. It has been stated that on the demise of the Maharaja, the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate descended in-tact to the successor. The Caveator has not disputed either the authenticity or the due execution of the will. 3. The following issues, were framed on 15 11968, after perusal of the draft issues submitted by counsel on either side, and after discussion with the counsel 1. Are items 1 to 8 in Annexure A assets of the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate belonging to the Maharaja of Ruler of Cochin as contended for by the respondent or are these or any of these items the private assets of the late Ramavarma (Pareekshit Thampuran) deceased? 2. Whether the securities mentioned in Annexure A-1. the shares in Annexure A-II and the car in Annexure A-III were acquired by deceased husband of petitioner as his private acquisitions with funds belonging to him and. or over which he had powers of disposal? 3. If the items in Annexure A belonged to the Palleera Muthalpidi estate, then is the petitioner entitled to Letters of Administration as prayed for? 4. In respect of what all assets, if any, in Annexure A is the petitioner entitled to get Letters of Administration? 5. Are the funds administered by the Private Secretary to His Highness the Maharaja of Cochin and any investments made by the Private Secretary in Banks or Securities the private properties of the Maharaia as contended for by the petitioner or do they belong to the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate as contended for by the respondent? 6. Has there been a merger of item No. 7 in the Ann exure A in the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate as contended for by the respondent? 7. Is the petitioner the sole heir of his Highness Ramavarma (Pareekshit Thampuran) deceased? 8. Is the Maharaja of Cochin a Ruler as defined in Art.366 (22) of the Constitution of India? 9. Is not the Maharaja or Ruler of Cochin entitled to the personal privilege etc. granted by Article XVI of the Covenant of Integration between the States of Travancore and Cochin? 10. 8. Is the Maharaja of Cochin a Ruler as defined in Art.366 (22) of the Constitution of India? 9. Is not the Maharaja or Ruler of Cochin entitled to the personal privilege etc. granted by Article XVI of the Covenant of Integration between the States of Travancore and Cochin? 10. Is the inheritance to and right of enjoyment of the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate a personal privilege or dignity as envisaged by the Covenant of Integration and guaranteed under Art.362 of the Constitution of India? 11. Does the letter from the States Ministry dated 13 - 2 -1954 evidence an act of State recognising the nature and incidents of the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate owned by the Ruler of Cochin? 12. If the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate is held to be Stanam property, then is not the respondent entitled to possession and management of the Estate under the provisions of the Kerala Act 28 of 1958? Are not the objections maintainable even on that ground? 13. Whether the objector, not being admittedly interested in the personal assets of the deceased is entitled to the petitioner? 14. Whether the Maharaja of Cochin is a corporation sole and whether the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate is attached to such corporation sole? 15. Whether the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate is Stanarn property of the Ruler of Cochin. If so does the stanam exist after the Hindu Succession Act and whether the objector can maintain the objection in the form put Forward in the objection. 16. Whether the Nithyachilavu Muthalpidi and the funds administered by the Private Secretary form part of the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate? 17. What is the proper order as to costs? 18. Whether the question of the objector's adverse or paramount title to the assets mentioned in Annexure A to the petition can be gone into in these proceedings? 4. On 30 11968, CMP. No. 1140 of 1968 was filed by the Caveator praying that all issues except Issues 4, 13 and 17 are unnecessary and may be deleted. Arguments on the above CMP. and on the main petition itself, were then addressed by the counsel. pw. I was examined on the side of the petitioner and the will was marked as Ex. P-1. 5. There was really on controversy between the counsel that the issues sought to be deleted by CMP. Arguments on the above CMP. and on the main petition itself, were then addressed by the counsel. pw. I was examined on the side of the petitioner and the will was marked as Ex. P-1. 5. There was really on controversy between the counsel that the issues sought to be deleted by CMP. No. 1140 of 1958 are unnecessary for the purpose of this petition for Letters of Administration. Counsel for the petitioner and for the Caveator were agreed that these issues should be deleted. Issues 1 to 3, 5 to 12,14 to 16 and 18 are accordingly deleted and do not therefore call for further consideration. 6. The Caveator has no objection to grant of Letters of Administration to the petitioner as legal representative of the deceased and in respect of his assets and estate, as on intestacy; nor even to the grant of Letters of Administration with the will annexed, in respect of the properties covered by the will, provided this Court finds, that an administration of the estate is necessary. The objection, as already noticed, is in respect of the grant of Letters of Administration specifically related to assets in Annexure A of the affidavit of the valuation. According to the Caveator the items in Annexure A or atleast many of them were part of the Palleera Muthalpidi Estate of the Maharaja of Cochin and the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of them to the petitioner would place the petitioner in a position of vantage and subject the Caveator to a corresponding disadvantage. It was contended that this application for Letters of Administration was a device to obtain an adjudication from this Court in regard to the title of the properties covered by Annexure A, and that it was not the province of this Court in these proceedings to embark on such investigation or to pronounce on the question of title. It was contended again with respect to S.232, 276 and 290 of the Indian Succession Act read with schedule VII that there was no provision for filing any Annexure to the petition and praying for Letters of Administration in respect of the items covered by the Annexure. 7. That it is not usual in these proceedings to decide the question of title in respect of the property dealt with by the will is a proposition that is not disputed. 7. That it is not usual in these proceedings to decide the question of title in respect of the property dealt with by the will is a proposition that is not disputed. As early as in I. L. R.19 Allahabad 458 it was observed: "It has been contended that where an application for probate of a will is contested and it is alleged that the property dealt with by the will was not of the testator or was not property over which the testator had a power of testamentary disposal, it is the duty of the court to try an issue raising this question. All we can say is that it would be exceedingly inconvenient if Courts in this country had to try such issues. A court could never be quite sure that that got the proper parties before it. It would be difficult always to be sure that there was no collusion in the case. It is much safer in the interests of the public that issues as to the title to property should be decided in a regular suit, and not on an application for a grant of probate". Counsel for the petitioner contended that it was not open to the Caveators to set up a title paramount to that of the deceased and that the Caveator should be a person having some interest in the property of the deceased. He relied on S.283 (c) and 284 (4) of the Indian Succession Act. The Caveator rejoined that he was neither disqualified to be a Caveator, nor was he setting up any pleas of paramount title. His plea in effect was that the deceased had only a life state but no transmissible proprietorship in the properties mentioned in Annexure A, and that on his death the said properties descended on him. In Bai Parvathibai v. Raghunath Lakshman (A. I. R.1941 Bom. 60) Kania J. (as he then was) observed: 'In my opinion a testamentary Court dealing with the question of issuing a grant of probate is concerned to see whether the will is duly executed as required by law by a testator of sound and disposing states of mind. In case of grant of letters of Administration the Court has to see that the person properly entitled to represent the estate of the deceased according to the Succession Act has come to Court and is given the grant. In case of grant of letters of Administration the Court has to see that the person properly entitled to represent the estate of the deceased according to the Succession Act has come to Court and is given the grant. It is no part of the duty of the testamentary judge to consider the question of title to property S.211, Succession Act expressly provides that the issue of probate Or letters of administration does not vest in the executor or administrator as the case may be, the property which is claimed to belong to a joint family of which the deceased was a member. In my opinion a caveat cannot be sustained on the mere ground that the property which is attempted to be disposed of by the deceased by the will or in respect of which Letters of Administration are asked for 18 joint family estate. I understand that to be the uniform practice on the testamentary side, and I see no reason to differ from it. In my opinion, this practice is based on sound reason. The caveat in this case which is based on this ground alone therefore dismissed. This is not likely to prejudice in any way the caveator because he has the right to file a suit to establish his title to the property, and if adequate grounds are made out, to obtain the appointment of a receiver or an injunction against the administrator.' 8. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Patna High Court in Debendra Prasad Sukul v. Surendra Prasad Sukul (54 Indian Cases 807). The decisions of the Calcutta, Bombay and Allahabad High Courts and the practice followed by them in regard to the grant of Letters of Administration were there reviewed. Adverting to the contention raised that before a grant can be made it must be shown in the first place that there is an estate left by the deceased, the learned judges observed: 'Undoubtedly, this contention is correct but in my view that question must be decided as it has been held by the Calcutta High Court and Bombay High Court upon the allegation made in the petition.' The Calcutta decision referred to is 3 C. W. N. 277 (Notes), and the Bombay decision is I L. R.28 Bombay 644. In the Bombay case, Jenkins C. J. observed: "The petition, however, alleges property in the deceased, and the reasons operating to limit the scope of the enquiry when probate is sought are equally applicable to a petition for Letters of Administration." In the present case, the petitioner has, as already noticed, alleged that the assets mentioned in Annexure A to the petition form part of the personal assets of the deceased. Following the principle of the above decisions, I hold that this allegation is sufficient for the purpose of this petition. 9. Petitioner's counsel was also at pains to explain that Annexure A to the petition was not altogether foreign to its scope. He referred to the provision of Ss 276 (1) (dt,276(3). 278 (1) (d) and 278 (2) of the Indian Succession Act. These enjoin a specification by the assets in respect of which the grant is prayed for. Besides, the petitioner's counsel referred to S.55 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 and to Part I of Schedule III therein. Under S.55 of the Act an application: for the grant of Letters of Administration shall be accompanied by an affidavit of valuation of the estate in the form set forth in Part I of Schedule III. Part -I of Schedule II provides for the disclosure of assets in Annexure A to the affidavit. In the light of these provisions, and of the authorities to which my attention has been drawn I do not see any force in the objections raised by the Caveator to the prayer for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the assets specified in Annexure to the petition. No question of adjudication of title in respect of the assets in Annexure A arises in these proceedings. The Caveator is in no way prejudiced by the grant. 10. The objection that there is no need for any administration Of the estate and therefore no grant of Letters of Administration is called for, is without force. As the petitioner's counsel pointed out, this objection was not pleaded by the Caveator. For the petitioner, it was stated that some of the assets specified in Annexure A are Government Securities and no interest is realisable in respect of them, without the grant of the Letters of Administration. The cases cited by the Caveator's counsel where Letters of Administration were refused, are distinguishable. For the petitioner, it was stated that some of the assets specified in Annexure A are Government Securities and no interest is realisable in respect of them, without the grant of the Letters of Administration. The cases cited by the Caveator's counsel where Letters of Administration were refused, are distinguishable. Saivid Abdullah Khan v. Saivid Basharat Hussain (42 Indian Cases 737) proceeded on agreement by counsel that it was unnecessary to grant Letters of Administration. In Prasanna, Kumari Debi v. Ram Chandra Singha (17 Indian Cases 155) the grant was sought for nearly six years after the death of the deceased and the court was satisfied that it was a transparent device to obtain a decision on a contested question of title. Besides there were no creditors to be paid, no debts to be collected, and no estate which stood in need of administration. The position here disclosed is different. 11. In the result I record my findings on issues 4,13 and 17 which 'are the only issues arising for determination, as follows: Issue No. 4. The petitioner is entitled to Letters of Administration in respect of the assets mentioned in Annexure A to the affidavit of valuation. The petition alleges property in the deceased in respect of those assets and that is sufficient for the purposes of this petition. Issue No. 13. The Caveator not being one interested in the personal assets of the deceased, is not entitled to oppose the grant of Letters of Administration to the petitioner. Following the principle of the decision in Bai Parvatibai v. Raghunath Lakshman (A. I. R.1941 Bom. 60) and, as was done in that case, the Caveat which is sought to be sustained on the ground that the testator had no disposing power over the time in Annexure A is dismissed. (See also the decision in Abhiram Das and Executor Jairant v. Gopal Dass (I. L. R.17 Cal. 48). Issue No. 17. The petitioner's costs will come out of the estate of the deceased, The Caveator will bear his own costs. 12. Letters of Administration will issue to the petitioner as prayed for on payment of the requisite court fee and on furnishing security.