JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This is a petition under section 241 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the Act) for grant of letters of administration, with the Will annexed for the administration of the estate of Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey deceased, for the use and benefit of the absent executor, Lt. Col. L. H. M. Gregory, the sole-executor so named by late Ms. Lisbey as per her last Will and testament dated 22-6-1978. The executor of the Will Lt. Col. Gregory is stated to be presently residing in London, as such, his general attorney Kamaljit Singh Grewal (hereinafter called the petitioner) has filed this petition for the use and benefit of his principal Lt. Col. Gregory. 2. It is stated in the petition that late Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey widow of late Mr. Norman Douglas Lisbey was resident of Dunloe Estate, near Deepak Project, Shimla and she died on 17-10-1980, at Shimla Sanitorium and Hospital, Chaura Maidan, Shimla. During her life time and at the time of death she was an Anglican Protestant Christian, as such governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 with respect to the property left by her in India. It is further alleged that as per her last Will, which she had executed on 22-6-1978 in presence of Rev. brother M. A. OSullivan, the then Principal of St. Edwards School, Shimla and the petitioner, she had appointed Lt. Col. Gregory as her sole executor. As per the Will Ms. Lisbey had bequeathed her property Dunloe Estates consisting of Dunloe House, Dunloe Lodge with Out Houses and all the vacant land with trees etc. to Lt. Col. Gregory to be the sole beneficiary and had desired that the property will be used in fostering friendly relations between the people of India, Great Britain and other Commonwealth countries. The amount of the Estates had been assessed to Rs. 2,34,936.95 as given in Schedule B’ attached to the petition. It is also stated that Ms. Lisbey had left no debts. 3. In the petition Ms. Irene Heysham and Ms. Doris Heysham were impleaded as party respondents 2 and 3 and it is stated in the petition that they claimed themselves to be relations of Ms. Lisbey, though this fact was not admitted by the petitioner. It is also stated that Ms. Lisbey had left no debts. 3. In the petition Ms. Irene Heysham and Ms. Doris Heysham were impleaded as party respondents 2 and 3 and it is stated in the petition that they claimed themselves to be relations of Ms. Lisbey, though this fact was not admitted by the petitioner. One Smt, Sundri Devi was also impleaded as party respondent No. 4 on the allegations that she as well as respondents 2 and 3 were interested to contest the claim of the petitioner, as to his information they had propounded another Will. Lastly, it is submitted that the estate duty on the estate of Ms. Lisbey would be paid as and when the letters of administration are ordered to be granted. 4. Besides notice to respondents, notice of petition was also given to Administrative General by order dated 29-12-1986, who ultimately gave statement on 27-7-1987 that he was not interested in any manner in the case, which was considered refusal on his part to represent the estate of the deceased as noticed in the order of that day. Respondents 2 and 3 as well as respondent No. 4 resisted the petition by filing their separate replies by way of objections. In the meantime, fourth respondent Smt. Sundri Devi had died and her legal representatives 4 (a) to 4 (d) were brought on record by the order of the same day passed in C.M.P. No. 3626 of 1986. 5. In the reply filed by respondents 2 and 3 number of preliminary objections were taken including that the petitioner has no authority to file and maintain the present petition and the petition involves complicated question of law and facts, which cannot be decided in the present proceedings which are of summary nature. On merits, it was denied that the Will for which the letters of administration has been prayed for is not a valid and legal Will as it was procured by the petitioner by practising fraud, coercion and undue influence upon the deceased, who at the relevant time was old and feeble lady without independent advisers. It is also stated that COMEX for whose benefit the Will purports to have been made, stood wound up and did not exist any longer or in the laternative Lt. Col. Gregory had no longer any thing to do with it. It is also stated that COMEX for whose benefit the Will purports to have been made, stood wound up and did not exist any longer or in the laternative Lt. Col. Gregory had no longer any thing to do with it. They have mentioned another Will which according to them was executed on 5-10-1980 by Ms. Lisbey in their favour and in favour of fourth respondent. They have also propounded an earlier Will dated 29-5-1974, which according to them was executed in their favour bequeathing the entire estate to them. In the alternative, their case is that they are last and surviving heirs of Ms. Lisbey and in the absence of any Will they would inherit her property. They claimed themselves to be close relations of Ms. Lisbey and denied the allegations that they were her distant cousins. 6. The reply filed on behalf of fourth respondent is also on the similar lines. According to her she and her husband had looked after Ms. Lisbey during her life time and for the services rendered, Ms. Lisbey had given to her the out houses consisting of four rooms, plot of land below Deepak Project and out houses above the Cart Road with gallery and various articles stored therein which were in unserviceable condition. She has propounded Will dated 5-10-1980, according to which Ms. Lisbey had appointed her cousin sisters Ms. Irene Heysham and Ms. Doris Heysham (respondents 2 and 3) as executors in case Lt. Col. Gregory was not to live in India. Rejoinders were also filed to the replies of respondents 2 & 3 and 4. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:— 1. Whether the petition involves complicated questions of law and fact and is, therefore, not maintainable? O. P. R. 2. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to institute the petition? O. P. A. 3. Whether the petition suffers from defects as set out in preliminary objections Nos. 5 and 6, if so, its effect? O. P. R. 4. Whether the late Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey executed a valid Will in sound and disposing mind in favour of the petitioner ? O.P.A. 5. Whether Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey executed a Will on October 5, 1980 in sound and disposing mind in favour of late Smt. Sundri Devi, if so, its effect ? O. P. R. 6. Relief. Whether the late Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey executed a valid Will in sound and disposing mind in favour of the petitioner ? O.P.A. 5. Whether Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey executed a Will on October 5, 1980 in sound and disposing mind in favour of late Smt. Sundri Devi, if so, its effect ? O. P. R. 6. Relief. Lateron two additional issues were framed on 6-7-1988:— 1. Whether Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey executed a valid Will on May 29, 1974 in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in sound and disposing mind ? 2. Whether respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the last surviving heirs of Ms. Lisbey and in the absence of any Will are entitled to inherit her property ? The petitioner examined as many as eight witnesses in support of his petition and closed his evidence on 16-11-1988. It seems that respondents 2 and 3 failed to produce their evidence despite opportunities afforded to them and they were also proceeded ex-parte at oae stage, which was lateron set aside by order dated 14-12-1989, but they did not produce evidence even thereafter and no counsel appeared for them till Shri G. D. Verma put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3 only on 4-5-1992 and moved C. M P. No. 183 of 1992 under Order 9, Rule 7 read with section 151, C. P. C. to allow respondent No. 3 to participate in the proceedings, which application was lateron rejected by order dated 10-9-1993. However, statements of three witnesses were recorded on behalf of legal representatives of fourth respondent. 8. The petitioner failed to give any other evidence in rebuttal, but appeared himself on 17-12-1993 to give the following statement:— "I am holding General Power of Attorney of Lt. Col. Lionel Hugh Michael Gregory, MBE, son of late Mr. Harry Charles Stephan Gregory and I have filed application under section 241 of the Indian Succession Act for Letters of Administration of the Will dated 22nd June, 1978 of late Mrs. Enid Alice Lisbey in favour of Lt. Col. L. H. M. Gregory. 1 have definite instructions to state that the entire immovable property of late Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey has been acquired and an award has been announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, Shimla, in which apportionment has been made between the parties. Enid Alice Lisbey in favour of Lt. Col. L. H. M. Gregory. 1 have definite instructions to state that the entire immovable property of late Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey has been acquired and an award has been announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, Shimla, in which apportionment has been made between the parties. The petitioner will not challenge the apportionment made in favour of late Smt. Sundri Devi, now her legal representatives Sant Ram, Mansha Ram, Sita Ram and Jagdish Chand. They may get the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, Shimla, to late Smt. Sundri Devi and also such other enhanced amount with regard to their share, if made on reference, which they may recover. Letters of Administration in respect of the remaining movable and immovable property may be granted in favour of the petitioner." 9. During the pendency of the petition second respondent Ms. Irene Heysham was reported dead and an application (C. M. P. No. 402 of 1992) was filed for deletion of her name stating that she being spinster had not left behind any legal heir except her sister Ms. Doris Heysham, who was already on record as respondent No. 3. This petition was allowed and name of Ms. Irene Heysham respondent No. 2 was ordered to be deleted on 25-9-1992. As a result, memo or parties was corrected wherein Ms. Doris Heysham was arrayed as respondent No. 2 and legal representatives of Sundri Devi as respondents 3(a) to 3 (d). After hearing the arguments on the petition and before judgment could be announced, another application has been moved by Shri G. D. Verma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 that as per his information she had also died on 9-12-1993 and none of her legal heirs has contacted him so far. In view of statement of Shri Verma, the name of Ms, Doris Heysham, now respondent No. 2, was also ordered to be deleted. 10. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Before this Court records its findings on Issues framed by it, it may be pointed out that admittedly before filing the present petition, a petition (Probate Case No. 1 of 1982) was filed for issuing probate in respect of the same Will dated 22-6-1978, which is subject-matter of the present petition by Lt. Col. Before this Court records its findings on Issues framed by it, it may be pointed out that admittedly before filing the present petition, a petition (Probate Case No. 1 of 1982) was filed for issuing probate in respect of the same Will dated 22-6-1978, which is subject-matter of the present petition by Lt. Col. Gregory through the present petitioner, which was ultimately withdrawn on 18-4-1983 with permission to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. Ms. Irene Heysham and Ms. Doris Hey sham had also filed a petition for probate on the basis of Will dated 5-10-1978 executed in their favour, in the Court of District Judge, Shimla (SA 3-S/2 of 1984), which was dismissed as withdrawn on 7-4-1986 on their statement that since Lt. Col. Gregory had filed a petition for probate in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, they had withdrawn their petition reserving their right to agitate their claim before the High Court in the petition of Lt. Col. Gregory. Findings of this Court issuewise are:— Issue No. 1 : 11. Learned Counsel for respondents have not addressed themselves to this issue to show what are those complicated questions of law and facts involved in the present petition, which make it not maintainable. Therefore, this Issue is decided against the respondents. Issue No. 2: 12. Petition under section 241 of the Act for letters of administration, with the Will annexed is filed by the attorney or agent of the absent executor for the use and benefit of his principal. So far present petition is concerned, it is not in dispute that as per the will dated 22-6-1978 annexed Lt. Col. Gregory is the sole executor who is resident of 110 Old Bramoten Road, London, England and not residing in India. He had executed on 11-11-1980 general power of attorney Ext. P-8 in favour of the petitioner which was registered on 12-11-1980 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Shimla and continues to be in operation. By this general power of attorney he has appointed the petitioner his lawful attorney to execute and perform all acts, deeds in connection with executorship of the estate of Ms. Lisbey, such as, to make applications under the provisions of the Act for grant of letters of administration, probate etc. etc., in respect of Will dated 22-6-1978 of Ms. Lisbey. By this general power of attorney he has appointed the petitioner his lawful attorney to execute and perform all acts, deeds in connection with executorship of the estate of Ms. Lisbey, such as, to make applications under the provisions of the Act for grant of letters of administration, probate etc. etc., in respect of Will dated 22-6-1978 of Ms. Lisbey. He has also been authorised, inter alia, to sell, mortgage, gift, lease or in any manner dispose of by transfer any movable or immovable property belonging to the estate of the deceased Ms. Lisbey, if it is in conformity with the recitals of the power of attorney and Reserve Bank of India has approved all the transactions by according its permission. The petitioner has appeared as PW-5 and produced the original document of general power of attorney. He has stated that on his appointment as general attorney by Lt. Col. Gregory, he moved an application under section 192 of the Act in the Court of District Judge, Shimla for preservation of the property of the estate of Ms. Lisbey in which proceedings local Commissioner was appointed and inventory was prepared, He had also filed probate application No. 1 of 1982 on behalf of Lt. Col. Gregory, which was lateron withdrawn with permission to file another application. Thereafter, he has filed the present one. In his cross-examination he has categorically stated that Lt. Col. Gregory continued to be the founder and leader of COMEX and it is not correct that COMEX is no longer in existence and functioning in India. He has admitted that Lt. Col. Gregory has no intention to stay in India but certainly he intends to use the estate of late Ms Lisbey for the work and functions of COMEX in India. In fact there is nothing in his cross-examination to assail that Lt. Col. Gregory is not sole executor of the Will dated 22-6-1978 and he is not absent from the State and the petitioner is not his duly constituted attorney. In view of this, the petitioner has the locus standi to institute the present petition. Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly. Issue No. 3: 13. Onus of this Issue is on respondents 4 (a) to 4 (d) to show how the petition suffers from the defects as pointed out in preliminary objections Nos. 5 and 6. But their Counsel has not addressed himself to it. Issue No. 2 is answered accordingly. Issue No. 3: 13. Onus of this Issue is on respondents 4 (a) to 4 (d) to show how the petition suffers from the defects as pointed out in preliminary objections Nos. 5 and 6. But their Counsel has not addressed himself to it. In the circumstances, this Court holds this Issue against respondents 4 (a) to 4 (d). Issue No. 4: 14. To prove that Will dated 22-6-1978 executed in favour of Lt. Col. Gregory is a valid Will and its testator Ms. Lisbey was of sound and disposing mind at the time of its execution, both the attesting witnesses the petitioner (Sh. Kamaljit Singh Grewal) and Brother OSullivan have come forward to depose as PWs 5 and 6. It is well settled that the mode of proving the Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by section 63 of the Act. These requipments are that the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will at such a place in the Will that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will and the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator but shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. 15. So far Will dated 22-6-1978 is concerned, it is proved to be written in the handwriting of the testator late Ms. Lisbey and signed by her in the presence of both the attesting witnesses, who had also attested the Will in the presence of testator Ms. Lisbey at the same site. Brother OSullivan PW 6 who was working as Principal of St. Edward School at the relevant time, has stated that he knew late Ms. Lisbey since 1976 and had been helping her whenever she approached him with her problems. He has further stated that Ms. Lisbey at the same site. Brother OSullivan PW 6 who was working as Principal of St. Edward School at the relevant time, has stated that he knew late Ms. Lisbey since 1976 and had been helping her whenever she approached him with her problems. He has further stated that Ms. Lisbey had once mentioned to him that she would like to have her home (Dunloe Estate) turned into a memorial for herself and her husband to foster good relations among the people of the Commonwealth especially those of India and Britain. After seeing the Will dated 22-6-1978 (Ex. P-13), this witness has deposed that it was written and signed by Ms. Lisbey in her own hand in his presence as well as of Mr. K. S. Grewal, and they had also appended their signatures on it as attesting witnesses in the presence of Ms. Lisbey. He has also identified the endorsement on the Will marked P-i3/A in his own handwriting. According to him, the mental faculties of Ms. Lisbey at the time of execution of the Will were perfectly sound. In cross-examination he has stated that he had met Lt. Col. Gregory for about nine times in between 1972 and 1978 mostly in Shim la when he led the Commonwealth expedition for three times. He has further stated that Lt. Col. Gregory had come to Shimla on 17th and 18th of March, 1978 when he met Ms. Lisbey last before execution of the Will. He had accompanied Mr. Grewal to Ms. Lisbey for the purpose of the execution of the Will dated 22-6-1978 after the purpose was disclosed to him by Mr. Grewal. He has denied that the Will was dictated by Mr. Grewal but has admitted that it was being copied by late Ms. Lisbey from another document as far as he remembered. According to him in the year 1978 Ms. Lisbey was though a frail lady but mentally she was very alert. He has denied the suggestion that the Will Ext. P-13 was executed by Ms. Lisbey under undue influence and reiterated that she did it of her own sweet Will. 16. The petitioner, who has appeared as PW-5, has deposed that at the request of Lt. Col. Gregory, Brother OSullivan PW-6 had introduced him to Ms. He has denied the suggestion that the Will Ext. P-13 was executed by Ms. Lisbey under undue influence and reiterated that she did it of her own sweet Will. 16. The petitioner, who has appeared as PW-5, has deposed that at the request of Lt. Col. Gregory, Brother OSullivan PW-6 had introduced him to Ms. Lisbey first time in the middle of May, 1978, when he was practising as Lawyer in the High Court at Chandigarh, lateron he was appointed to Higher Judicial Services in May, 1986. Thereafter, he used to visit Ms Lisbey almost regularly every month to assist her in her legal problems, whereas, his wife who is a doctor, used to attend on her from time to time. On 21-6-1978 when he met Ms. Lisbey, she expressed her desire to execute a Will bequeathing her property to Lt. Col. Gregory for the use of expedition of Commonwealth. This witness goes on to state that on the following morning i. e. 22-6-1978, Ms. Lisbey executed Will Ext. P-13 in his presence and presence of Brother OSullivan PW-6. Ms. Lisbey had written the Will in her own handwriting and both of them had signed the Will as attesting witnesses in her presence and in the presence of each other. He has further stated that Ms. Lisbey was perfect healthy and of sound disposing mind at the time of executing the Will. She was mentally alert and knew what she was doing. He has also brought on record letters Exts. P-14 and P-15 written by late Ms. Lisbey and letters Exts. P-16 to P-27 signed by her. As Ms. Lisbey had been regularly writing to him and Lt. Col. Gregory, he is acquainted with her handwriting and signatures, which he had identified on these letters. Rest of his statement pertains to relations of Ms. Lisbey with original respondents 2 and 3 (Heysham sisters), to which this Court needs not refer for the reasons stated hereinafter. 17. In his statement the petitioner has further brought on record that late Ms. Lisbey had applied to Reserve Bank of India under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act seeking permission for Ms. Lisbey to gift her property to Lt. Col. Gregory and for him to receive this property by gift, which was granted on 19-8-1978 vide letter Ext. P-28 addressed to him. Lisbey had applied to Reserve Bank of India under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act seeking permission for Ms. Lisbey to gift her property to Lt. Col. Gregory and for him to receive this property by gift, which was granted on 19-8-1978 vide letter Ext. P-28 addressed to him. Lastly, he has added to his statement that at no point of time after executing the Will dated 22-6-1978 Ms. Lisbey expressed her desire to execute any Will in favour of any other party or to take away her property from Lt. Col. Gregory. He has denied that COMEX has been wound up long ago and it is no longer functioning in India. He has given the name of Mr. Parmod Shankar, Chartered Accountant in The Times of India, New Delhi as Honorary Secretary of COMEX in India. He has reiterated that Lt. Col. Gregory has been continuing to be the founder and leader of COMEX, who intends to use the property of Ms. Lisbey for the work and functions of COMEX in India. Though there is lengthy cross-examination on behalf of respondents, yet his testimony in respect of execution of the Will as well as the healthy, sound and disposing mind of late Ms Lisbey is not shattered. Therefore, it is held that Will dated 22-6-1978 Ext. P-13 is a valid Will executed by late Ms. Lisbey in her sound and disposing mind whereby she had bequeathed her estate known as Dunloe Estate consisting of Dunloe House, Dunloe Lodge with out houses and all the vacant land with trees, flowers, shrubs, fruit trees etc. etc., to Lt Col. Gregory so that he may continue the great work of fostering friendly relations among the people of India, Britain and other Commonwealth countries. In result, Issue No, 4 is answered in affirmative in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 5: 18. Original respondent No. 4 Smt. Sundri Devi, who was working as Aya with Ms Lisbey, had also propounded a Will dated 5-10-1980 which is brought on record as Ext. In result, Issue No, 4 is answered in affirmative in favour of the petitioner. Issue No. 5: 18. Original respondent No. 4 Smt. Sundri Devi, who was working as Aya with Ms Lisbey, had also propounded a Will dated 5-10-1980 which is brought on record as Ext. R4 W-3/A whereby "out houses consisting of four rooms and small plot of land across the Link road to Deepak Project and out house upper to the Cart road consisting of Twelve rooms, six upper and six lower with a galery and a small piece of land below the footpath besides to the Kithi, alongwith the things which are almost unserviceable like empty boxes and unserviceable furniture etc. locked into the out houses" have been bequeathed in her favour. This Will was also registered on 30-7-1984 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Shimla. One of the attesting witnesses Mahant Ram has been produced as R-4 W-3. He has identified his signatures at Point A encircled in read on the Will Ext. R-4 W-3/A and has deposed that at the time of execution of the Will he alongwith Durga Singh as well as Smt. Sundri Devi, the beneficiary of the Will, were present. According to him, Ms. Lisbey had signed this Will in their presence and thereafter he and Durga Singh had appended their signatures. Lateron he had also accompanied Smt. Sundri Devi to the Office of Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration of the Will. Though he has stated m the examination-in-chief that Ms. Lisbey was in a fit state of mind and health at the time of execution of Will, yet he has admitted in cross-examination that she was old, ailing and admitted in hospital. In reply to the question that who had brought the typed Will, he not only showed his ignorance but voluntarily stated that it was already with her. He has admitted that nobody read over the Will to Ms. Lisbey but she herself had stated the contents of the Will. 19. The perusal of Will Ext. P-4 W-3/A, which is typed one, shows that it could not be a document which Ms Lisbey, an English lady, would have signed in sound and disposing mind, as it is not only in bad English but also full of grammatical and spelling mistakes. It seems somebody had tried to copy it from some other document(s). P-4 W-3/A, which is typed one, shows that it could not be a document which Ms Lisbey, an English lady, would have signed in sound and disposing mind, as it is not only in bad English but also full of grammatical and spelling mistakes. It seems somebody had tried to copy it from some other document(s). The sole statement of Mahant Ram R-4 W-3, the attesting witness, does not inspire confidence as he was a chance witness and has accompanied the beneficiary of the Will Smt. Sundri Devi at her instance, who was just his acquiantance, not only to the hospital to sign as attesting witness to the Will but also lateron to the office of Sub-Registrar for registration of the Will during the period of his leave, as at the relevant time he was posted in Kinnaur as Tehsil Welfare Officer. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Will dated 5-10-1980 Ext. R-4 W-3/A is not proved to be executed in accordance with law. Moreover, it is shrouded in suspicious circumstances, such as, the executant was old, ailing and admitted in the hospital at the time of alleged execution of the Will ; the beneficiary took active part in the execution of the Will, inasmuch as, bringing the attesting witnesses and getting the Will typed ; the executant was old, feeble lady admitted in the hospital and dying after twelve days of the execution of the Will ; the language and tenor of the Will do not appear to be of late Ms. Lisbey, an English lady etc. etc. Therefore, this Issue is answered in negative against the respondents 4 (a) to 4 (d) and in favour of the petitioner. However, in view of the statement given by the petitioner on 7-12-1993. which is reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, they will be entitled to the amount of compensation which has been apportioned in their favour by the Land Acquisition Collector, Shimla in his award in respect of immovable property of late Ms. Lisbey as well as the enhanced amount of compensation, if any, awarded in respect of their share. Additional Issues 1 and 2 framed on 6-7-1988: 20. Additional Issue No. 1 pertains to Will dated 29-5-1974 which was propounded by original respondents 2 and 3 and additional Issue No. 2 pertains to their right to inherit the property of Ms. Lisbey as well as the enhanced amount of compensation, if any, awarded in respect of their share. Additional Issues 1 and 2 framed on 6-7-1988: 20. Additional Issue No. 1 pertains to Will dated 29-5-1974 which was propounded by original respondents 2 and 3 and additional Issue No. 2 pertains to their right to inherit the property of Ms. Lisbey as her last surviving heirs in the absence of any Will. Since both these original respondents 2 and 3 (Ms. Irene Heysham and Ms. Doris Heysham) have died during th? pendency of the petition, as a result of which their names have been deleted from the array of respondents and their legal representatives have not come forward to participate in these proceedings, this Court needs not give findings on these Issues. 6. Relief: 21. The result of above discussion is that the petition is allowed and it is ordered that letters of administration, with the will annexed, be issued in favour of petitioner Mr. Kamaljit Singh Grewal, general attorney of Lt. Col. L. H. M. Gregory, the sole executor of the Will dated 22-6-1978 of late Ms. Enid Alice Lisbey for the use and benefit of his principal, Lt. Col. L. H. M. Gregory, limited until he shall obtain probate or letters of administration granted to himself. Costs easy. Petition allowed