JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has been preferred by the Administrator-General, U.P. against the judgment dated November 26, 1982 given in Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1982. 2. Suit No. 1 of 1982 had been filed by Swami Shantanand Saraswati for the grant of letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati, who died on September 1, 1976. 3. Swami Shantanand Saraswati claimed in his petition for Letters of Administration that January 24, 1954 Swami Bhagwatanand Sarswati was initiated as Sanyasi by him. Before taking Sanyas the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati came in contact with Swami Shantanand Saraswati in 1952. He first left his family life and, thereafter, took religious discourses and, thereafter, was initiated as a Sanyasi after due performance of the religious ceremony. He continued to live as the Chela of the Respondent till his death on September 1, 1976. The respondent claimed that according to Hindu law, he was entitled to succeed the estate and assets left by deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati. 4. In Annexures I and II attached to the petition for grant of Letters of Administration, the respondent gave the details of the assets which had been left by deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati. The valuation of these assets was Rs. 2,47,982.49. Most of the assets of deceased were in shape of fixed deposit or in accounts with Banks and post offices and were under different names like 'S.B. Anand', S. Bhagwatanand, Swami B. Saraswati and B. Anand Swami. 5. The petition for grant was subsequently, contested by the Administrator General and upon contest being put in, the application was treated as a plaint of the suit. On behalf of the Administrator General a counter-affidavit was filed stating that the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati had not been initiated by the respondent and as such, he could not claim the grant of Letters of Administration on that basis. The contention further was that the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati was since a Sanyasi, he could not hold any property except books, sandles, clothes and it was further pleaded that the respondent, even if was the Guru having initiated the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati, was not entitled to succeed the properties. 6. Upon the pleading of the parties, the learned judge framed as many as nine issues. 6. Upon the pleading of the parties, the learned judge framed as many as nine issues. Out of these issues, these relevant for deciding this appeal are issues 4, 5, and 6, which are as follows :- 4. Whether the amounts shown in Annexure-1 to the petition are assets of the deceased Sanyasi or that of the deceased in his personal capacity ? 5. What provisions of the personal law of the Hindu Law or any other law would be applicable? Is the petitioner entitled to succeed to the estate of the deceased under the Hindu law, usage or custom ? 6. Was the deceased a member and attached to the Jyotirmath of Shanker sect ? if so, its effect ? 7. The respondent produced six witnesses and examined himself on commission. On behalf of the Administrator General, no oral evidence was led. Documentary evidence brought on record consisted of Cheque Books, Drafts, Specimen signature cards issued at Banks and post offices. 8. Before coming to the discussion of issues 4, 5, and 6, it may be stated that on issue no. 3, which was to the following effect, there was a controversy in between the respondent and the administrator General. 9. Issue no. 3. Who was the real initiator (Guru) of the deceased, Sri Brahmanand Saraswati or the petitioner ? 10. The Administrator General took the stand that the deceased, Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati, had not been initiated by the respondent. The Learned Single Judge decided the aforesaid issue in favour of the respondent and against the Administrator General. No argument was 'advanced before us on behalf of the Administrator General challenging the correctness of this finding. That apart, we hold the same view on this issue, as was that of the learned single Judge. 11. Since issues 4, 5 and 6 raise common controversies, we have taken them together. 12. The first thing to be examined in connection with those issues is whether as a Sanyasi the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati could acquire and accumulate wealth. Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati was a Dandi Sanyasi, who according to the tenets of Shankatacharya sect to which he belonged, could keep only Kamandal, Kharaun and books. 13. For the above, it may be necessary to refer briefly to the laws of the discipline under which the deceased was living. 14. Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati was a Dandi Sanyasi, who according to the tenets of Shankatacharya sect to which he belonged, could keep only Kamandal, Kharaun and books. 13. For the above, it may be necessary to refer briefly to the laws of the discipline under which the deceased was living. 14. Different interpretations of the fundamental texts of Vedanta have given rise to three main Schools, Advaite, Vishists Dvaits and Dvaits. Shankara was the Chief exponent of Advaite. According to the Advita System, 1. Brahaman alone is reality ; 2. The world is only appearance on Brahman; 3. The soul is not different from Brahman. Experience of Atma is the same as experience of Brahman. 15. The upnishad prescribes two paths, viz., the path of renunciation for Sanyasi and the path of action or Karma Yoga for those who cannot renounce the world. For Sanyasis, Shankara explains that one should lose the sense of this unreal world in realising the Brahman with the idea 'I alone am all this as being the inner self of all'. 16. According to him in order to become a Sanyasi, one has to renounce the world. Renounce egoism, selfishness, the desire for liberation. Renounce renunciation itself. Then you will become that you will be in itself. Brahmaiva Bharati. The knower or Brahman "Brahmavitbecomes Brahman" Desire for liberation will destroy all earthly desires. You must renounce the desire for liberation also. "No Karmands prajaya dhanona tyag naike amritatvamanasuh, neither by words nor by progony, nor by riches but by renunciation alone one attains immortality". 17. When the discipline requires the Sanyasi to renounce the world, it is implied therein that he will not require to accummulate wealth. He is not concerned in the worldly pleasures of life, Sanyasi has been desired as no 'Yati or 'ascetic' H.I. Colebrooke, in his book on law of inheritance gives the annotation of the word 'Yati' or 'Ascetic' which reads as under : "A yati or ascetic, the terms 'ascetic' is in this translation used for the Yati or Sanyasi, and hermit' or 'anchorat' for the vanaprastha. In former translations, as in the version or MEMU by Shri William, J. the two last terms were applied severally to the two orders of devotion". 18. At this stage we may not see difference between 'Hermit' (Brahmachari) and an 'ascetic'. In former translations, as in the version or MEMU by Shri William, J. the two last terms were applied severally to the two orders of devotion". 18. At this stage we may not see difference between 'Hermit' (Brahmachari) and an 'ascetic'. This difference is noted on page 120 of the aforesaid, book of L.N. Colebrook, as under : "The answer is, a hermit may have property, for the text (or Yajnya-walcya expresses" The hermit may make a hoard or things sufficient for a day, a month, six months, or a year, and, in the month of Aswine, he should abandon (the residue or) What has been collected". The ascetic too has clothes, books and other redusita articles, for a passage (of the Veda) directs, that "he should wear clothes to cover his privy parts, "and a text (of law) prescribed that" he should take the requisite for his austerities and his sandalas. "The proposed student likewise has clothes to cover his body and he possesses also other articles". 19. Reference in this connection be also made to the law of inheritance as in the viramitrodya of Mirra Misra translated by Gopalchandra Sarkar Sastri 1879 Edition, It reads- "An ascetic should wear clothes to cover his privy parts and take the requisites for austerities (Yoga) and the sandals". 20. In Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir, AIR 1980 (S.C.) 707 it has been said by the supreme Court about the Sanyasi that "in order to prove that a person has adapted life of a 'Sanayasi' it must be shown that he has actually relinquished and abandoned all worldly leisured and relinquished all desires for them or that such ceremonies are performed which indicate the severance of his natural family and his secular life". 21. Dutied or a Yati (an ascetic) have been dealt with in part-II of the Vyayakara Nayukha by Vishvanath Narayan Mandlik, at page 250 by saying amongst other : "Indifferent to all beings, composed, carrying three sticks, with a wooden not, and keeping no company he should go himself to a village, only to beg alms. Keeping his senses under control, unmarked, and paying no regard to (the gratification of) the palate, he should in the evening beg alms enough to sustain life, in a village destitute or medicants. Dots (prescribed for the use) of an ascetic, should consist of earth, bamboo, wood or gourd. Keeping his senses under control, unmarked, and paying no regard to (the gratification of) the palate, he should in the evening beg alms enough to sustain life, in a village destitute or medicants. Dots (prescribed for the use) of an ascetic, should consist of earth, bamboo, wood or gourd. These are cleansed by water, and scoured with the heir on come". 22. Shankaracharya, as stated above, had also laid down that for becoming a Dasnami or Dandi Sanyasi, it was necessary that he should renounce the world. This would mean that the persons should cease to have any connection with his family and the wealth. He is supposed not to acquire or accumulate wealth by the writing books. His property consists only or the Kamandal, Kharaun and Dandi. 23. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, counsel for the respondent, however, emphasised that being no prohibition in the Dashamisect about writing or books and keeping the money by a Sanyasi received from the same, the deceased could lawfully accumulate the same. We submitted that under constitution of India, he had what he acquires wealth and any interpretation, by us, that he could not do so, would be in contravention of the Constitution. 24. We have now to examine as to what had the Mitakshara law of succession to the property of an ascetic. Paragraph 1, 2 and 4 of Section VIII given at pages 118 and 119 of H.T. Colebrooke are relevant. These paragraphs are reproduced below : 1. "It has been declared that sons and grandsons (or great grandsons) take the heritage, or on failure of them the widow or other successors. The author now propounds. The heirs of a hermit, or an ascetic and of a professed student, are, in their order, the preceptor, the virtuous pupil and the spiritual brother and associated in holiness. 2. The heirs of the property or a hermit or an ascetic and of a student in theology, are in order (that is, in the inverse order), the preceptor, a virtuous pupil and a spiritual brother belonging to the same hermitage. 3. A virtuous pupil takes the property of a yati or ascetic. 2. The heirs of the property or a hermit or an ascetic and of a student in theology, are in order (that is, in the inverse order), the preceptor, a virtuous pupil and a spiritual brother belonging to the same hermitage. 3. A virtuous pupil takes the property of a yati or ascetic. The virtuous pupil, again, is one who is assiduous in the study of theology, in retaining the holy science and in practising its ordinances, for a person, whose conduct is bad, is unworthy of the inheritance where he even is unworthy of the inheritance (standing in) any other (variable relation). There was a controversy before us on the interestation of these paragraphs. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, whereas submitted that the preceptor would get the property of his deceased Chela under the aforesaid. Sri O.P. Shah Agarwal, refuted the same and urged that in the case of a Sanyasi or an ascetic, his heir is his Chela or in other words, a virtuous pupil". 25. Raj Kumar Sarvadhikari, Tagore law professor has reproduced the principles laid down by Yajnavalkya in his lecture XVI. The same is at page 933 of the 'book' Hindu Law at inheritance written by him. The relevant portion is reproduced below : "The heirs to the property of a hermit, of an ascetic, and of a student of theology 'says the Mitakshara', are, in order (that is in the inverse order, the preceptor, a virtuous pupil, and a spiritual brother belonging to the same Hermitage". "The goods of a hermit, of an ascetic, and of a professed student, let the spiritual brother, the virtuous pupil and the holy preceptor take. On failure of these, the associate in holiness, or, person belonging to the same order, shall inherit. Thus, 'Yajnavalkya' says, The heirs of a hermit, of an ascetic, and of a professed student, are, in their order (that is inverse order), the preceptor, the virtuous pupil, and the spiritual brother and associate in holiness". 26. In his book on "Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts" Fourth Edition, at page 336, para 722, B.K. Mukherjee, deals with this controversy any saying. "722. To after acquired property of an ascetic. 26. In his book on "Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts" Fourth Edition, at page 336, para 722, B.K. Mukherjee, deals with this controversy any saying. "722. To after acquired property of an ascetic. According to the text of Yajnavalkya, referred to above, the property of a life long student goes to his preceptor, that of a hermit or Vanaprastha goes to his religious brother and that of a Sanyasi or Yati goes to his Virtuous disciple." 27. Mulla in his book on Principles of Hindu Law, in para 58, at page 155 says : "Hermits and members of religious order.- The heirs to the property of a hermit (Vanaprastha) is his spiritual brother belonging to the same hermitage, to that of an ascetic (Sanyasi) a virtuous pupil, and to that of a student in theology (Brahmchari) his religious preceptor. These heirs are entitled to succeed in preference to the kindred of the deceased. This rule applies only to members of the twice-born classes". 28. The interpretation placed by Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary is contrary to those which have been given by the learned authors, quoted by us above. What it means is that the property of a hermit will go to the preceptor whereas that of an ascetic to his virtuous pupil. A Sanyasi or ascetic was supposed to possess Kamandal, Sandle and books, only. Consequently, the rule of succession could not be that these things would go to the preceptor on the death of his pupil. These items could be the property for the virtuous pupil of an ascetic, who died but not for the Guru, who has initiated the deceased as his Chela. A Guru has been treated in Hindu religion as equivalent to God. The law could not provide that on the death of his pupil, the properties of the deceased would pass on to him (Guru). The expression "in order" used in the relevant "Slok" by Vajnvalkya has to be interpreted in the inverse order as said by H.T. Colebrooke and other learned author. By applying inverse order, the conclusion is that on the death of a hermit, the property would go to the preceptor, whereas on the death of the ascetic to his virtuous pupil. 29. By applying inverse order, the conclusion is that on the death of a hermit, the property would go to the preceptor, whereas on the death of the ascetic to his virtuous pupil. 29. The respondent's learned counsel submitted that only on the failure of a preceptor that the property can go, under the principles of succession laid down by Yajnavalkya, to his virtuous pupil. But where preceptor is alive, he will inherit the properties in preference to the virtuous pupil of the ascetic. In that connection, learned counsel submitted that one of the maxims of interpretation publicable for understanding the meaning of a " (Sic.) is " (Sic.) ". 30. K.P. Saxena, in his book on Hindu Law and Jurisprudence, 1944 Edn. has given the meaning of this expression at page 136. The meaning is "when invited all must be equally attended to. It means that where to a number of nominative clauses, there is one common predicate, that predicate must be applied to all the clauses. Counsel for the respondent urged that the property could have been inherited equally by the preceptor and the virtuous pupil on the death of Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati. Had there been any person of the second category, i.e., if the deceased would have left any virtuous pupil, he could have inherited along with the preceptor This interpretation, we are unable to accept. The " (Sic.) " applicable, to this case has been interpreted by different writers and all of them have held that in the case of death of an acetic, his assets would be inherited by his virtuous pupil. It does not provide that if virtuous pupil is not alive, the property would pass on to the Guru of the deceased. We cannot read in the " (Sic.) " the right of the preceptor to inherit in the absence of the virtuous pupil of the deceased. In Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir AIR 1980 (S.C.) 707 the Supreme Court observed in para 17. "In applying the personal law of the parties, a Judge cannot introduce his own concepts of modern times but should enforce the law as derived from recognised and authoritative source of Hindu Law................" 31. On the question whether an ascetic could hold property or not, we have already quoted the treatise and law books dealing with original text in Hindu Law. On the question whether an ascetic could hold property or not, we have already quoted the treatise and law books dealing with original text in Hindu Law. In that connection, we may have referred to Section VIII at page 126 of H.T. Colebrooke book wherein it has been said that: "..........for the text (of Yajnyawalkya) expression. The ascetic too has clothes, books and other requisite articles........" 32. In para 7.21, Dr. B.K. Mukharjee has opined that a Sanyasi, having renounced the world could not be expected to acquire property. He says : "It cannot be disputed that the very word, Sanyasi implies complete renunciation, and, in fact, the ideals of renunciation and acquisition of the property are wholly repugnant to each other". 33. The next question is where does the property go, if an ascetic has acted in derogation of the injunction. There can be two answers one that the property could pass on the death of such a person to his natural heirs and the other that even the wealth collected against the tenets of the sect would go to his spiritual heirs. The latter course appears to us to not be supported by any text or writings. Yajnavalkya has dealt with the right of inheritance of virtuous pupil with regard to the property which the ascetic could collect and held. He has not provided for inheritance of the property collected by an ascetic to the tenets of the sect. 34. Dr. B.K. Mukherjee, in his book, Hindu Law of Religious and charitable Trusts states that:- "But, so far as the general question is concerned, it may be taken to be settled law that there is no legal disability imposed on an ascetic from acquiring property in the ordinary way, however much such conduct might appear to be improper or sinful from the moral or the religious, point of view". 35. In Guru Char an Prasad v. Krishnanand Giri AIR 1968 (S.C.) 1032 , the Mohunts of Math systematically pursued a money lending business and it was found on evidence that the Mohunts were transferring properties, or describing themselves as the absolute owners of the properties in the record. It was held on the facts that the property was the personal property of the Mohunts. This decision does not help in resolving the controversy arising before us. It was held on the facts that the property was the personal property of the Mohunts. This decision does not help in resolving the controversy arising before us. We have already held above that the preceptor or Guru could not inherit the properties left by the deceased, Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati, as he is not an heir according to the law of inheritance applicable to the ascetic as propounded by Yajnavalkya. 36. Consequently, the application for grant of, Letters of Administration moved by the respondent is liable to be rejected. In our opinion, if the preceptor could not be the heir of the properties left by the deceased ascetic, being not in the order of succession, he could not be held entitled to get these properties which are acquired contrary to the tenants of the sect. In Prabhu Dayal v. Lalta Das AIR 1916 Oudh 293, the law laid down is : "On the death of a Yati, who can hold private property, his disciples are entitled to his movable as well as immovable property, in the absence of his preceptor". 38. In the above case, the deceased did not belong to a Dashami or Dandi Swami. He was required as such the law propounded in this case will not apply. 39. In para 7, 24, B.K. Mukherjee has dealt with this problem. It says : "Vairagees are not ascetics in the proper sense ; While on the question of ascetics, it may be stated that Vairagees are a class of Vaishnava ascetics in lower Bengal who do not renounce the world in the proper sense of the word. They buy and sell, marry and have children, in fact they do not give up their status as householders. In the case of Vairagees, succession is regulated by ordinary law and not by the special rules laid down by Yajnavalkya". 40. Furthermore, the disciplines were held entitled to succeed to the property of a Faquir on his death. That is not the position before us. The right of the Guru to inherit the property of his chela was not in issue in that case. A decision is an authority only what it decides. 41. S.V. Gupta in his book on Hindu Law Vol. II, page 9 has placed the same interpretation on Mitakshara, II, (ii) Yajnavalkya, II page 136. The right of the Guru to inherit the property of his chela was not in issue in that case. A decision is an authority only what it decides. 41. S.V. Gupta in his book on Hindu Law Vol. II, page 9 has placed the same interpretation on Mitakshara, II, (ii) Yajnavalkya, II page 136. He says : "On the death of intestate of a nake Hindu who was a member of a religious order, his property passed, in the first instance, as follows : (i) where the deceased was a hermit, to his spiritual brother belonging to the same hermitage ; (ii) where the deceased was an ascetic, to his virtuous pupil; and (iii) where the deceased was a Brahmchari or a student of the theology, to his religious preceptor. and failing : (i) to spiritual brother ; (ii) to virtuous pupil ; (iii) the preceptor, as the case was to the heirs according to the religious law, i.e., the blood relations and strangers in the usual order, according to school. 42. The next question is whether the succession in the case of death of the Sanyasi is governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Act, as its preamble, indicates, was to amend and modify the law relating to interstate succession amongst Hindus. Section 4 deals with its overriding effect. By Clause (a), the provision made is that in text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or in custom or usage as part of that law in force, before the commencement of his Act shall cease to have effect with respect to an matter for which the provision is made in this Act. 43. Under the Hindu Succession Act, no provision has been made for succession of the property of a Sanyasi. It is true that a Sanyasi is a Hindu, but succession to his properties was being governed by the custom or usage of Mitakshara Law. Under Clause (b), all law to the extent that they deal with the matters which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall cease to have force and effect. That means that the laws are not repeated. But the provisions of those laws which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, ceased to have operation. Under Clause (b), all law to the extent that they deal with the matters which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall cease to have force and effect. That means that the laws are not repeated. But the provisions of those laws which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, ceased to have operation. Clauses (a) and (b) read together would indicate that the custom and usage which were in force before the commencement of this Act and which are not inconsistent with or repugnant with this Act could be effective. 44. In our view, the custom and usage laying down the Rule of Shastrik Law would continue to apply to the Sanyasis and as propounded by Yajnavalkya, the preceptor would not be entitled to inherit on the death of his disciple. 45. In Sumer Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1965 Raj. 2 , the view taken by a learned Single Judge was that entrance into a religious order. The Hindu Succession Act contains no provision for succession to such properties. Such succession, therefore, continues to be governed by customary law. 46. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary had placed reliance on the aforesaid decision in support of his submission that it is not by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act,'but by the Mitakshara Law that the rights to inherit by the preceptor on the death of his disciple has to be accepted. Sri O.P. Shah Agarwal, appearing for the Administrator General contended to the contrary that Hindu Succession Act applies and under the Hindu Succession Act to the properties left by the deceased, the law of inheritance has to be found from Section 8 of the same. 47. It is true that a Guru or preceptor is not entitled under Section 8 to inherit the properties of a Hindu governed the learned Single Judge, that a Guru is in the position of a father and, as such, he would be entitled to receive the property even under the Hindu Succession Act. The father means a male parent, who is related by blood. It does not apply to a preceptor, who may be either of reverence and Hindu Mythology, be treated as equivalent to father of the disciple. 48. The question that next arises is about the entitlement of the Guru to the properties of the deceased Chela. The father means a male parent, who is related by blood. It does not apply to a preceptor, who may be either of reverence and Hindu Mythology, be treated as equivalent to father of the disciple. 48. The question that next arises is about the entitlement of the Guru to the properties of the deceased Chela. We have already discussed this controversy elaborately and found that only a virtuous pupil can inherit and not the preceptor. There appears to us to be a reason for accepting the argument of the Administrator-General that by Severance of the world by a Hindu when he becomes a Sanyasi results in his civil death and that being so, his properties collected against the tenets of the sect, would not pass on to his heirs enumerated under the Hindu Law. Civil death is the death of a living person equivalent in its legal consequence to natural death. Specially extension of civil right and title. Thus, under the Old Hindu Law, a widow or any other limited heir was competent to surrender. His whole interest in the whole Estate in favour of the nearest reversioner or revenues and has surrendered have the effect of offence to widow or the other limited heir. See Rangaswami v. Neehiappa 1918 (46) I.A. 72. 49. In T. Kuck v. Shamma 1964 W.R. 209, it was held that a person who enters into a religious order renouncing all worldly affairs is recorded as civil death since it excludes him from the inheritance and from a share on partition. 50. Complete abandonment of worldly interest by becoming ascetic was held in Take v. Busti 1874 P.R. 15, disqualify him from making an adoption. The same view was taken in Mhalsabai v. Vithobe 7 B.H.C.R. (App.) 26. From all of these decisions, we are of the view that a person who has renounced the world is effaced and, as such on his death, the properties will not be inherited by the heirs and legal representatives laid down under the Hindu Code. As Shastrik Law also does not provide for succession of the property, which was involved in the present case, on the death of Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati, the same could not be inherited by any one. It will come by estate to the State. As Shastrik Law also does not provide for succession of the property, which was involved in the present case, on the death of Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati, the same could not be inherited by any one. It will come by estate to the State. The Rajasthan High Court, in the case cited above, had also taken the view that the renunciation of world by a Sanyasi amounts to his civil death. 51. Under Section 7, a next of kin is entitled to the Letters of Administration. This expression includes not only those who are related by blood with the deceased, but also other persons who may be entitled to receive under the law. The respondent does not come in either of the two categories. Neither he is related by blood nor is entitled by law to the letters of Administration. 52. For what we have said above, Swami Shantanand Saraswati is not entitled to the letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased, Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati. The Administrator General, U.P., Allahabad is, thus, entitled to collect and to take possession of the assets of the deceased Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati, who will without deducting the expenses incurred in this litigation remit the same to the Home Ministry of the State of U.P. The U.P., Government may create a public trust and invest the amount for some charitable purposes, if so advised, with a view to furtherance the objects in which Swami Bhagwatanand Saraswati was engaged. 53. We record our appreciation for the labour done by Sri O.P. Agarwal, in arguing this appeal before us. 54. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. We set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the application for grant of letters of Administration moved by the respondent. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.