Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 523 (KAR)

Parameshwaran Subramani v. Nil

2016-07-08

VINEET KOTHARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. These petitions under S.228 Part IX of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 have been filed by one Mr. Parameshwaran Subramani seeking an ancillary Letter of Administration under the provisions of S.228 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘Act’ for short) in the absence of the Executor Mr. Adrian Maxwell Kenneth Shedden (Jr) of Unit 3/72, Patrick Street, Clayton North and presently at No.6, Anne Court, Cranbourne, Victoria 3977, Australia , in respect of the Will executed by one Mrs. Dorothy Mavis Shedden, his grand mother and the deceased who died in Clayton, Australia on 29.7.2004. 2. The deceased at the time of her death, had a fixed place of abode at # 29, Leonard Close, Clayton South Victoria 3168 in Australia and left properties in Australia and also at Bengaluru within the State of Karnataka, India. 3. Prior to her death, the deceased made and published her last Will and Testament dated 11.12.1998 naming her grandson, Mr. Adrian Maxwell Kenneth Shedden (Jr) of Unit 3/72, Patrick Street, Clayton North and presently at # 6, Anne Court, Cranbourne, Victoria 3977, Australia, as the Executor of the Will and the Trustee of her estates. The original of the said Will has been filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Probate Jurisdiction for obtaining probate of the said Will. 4. On October 7, 2014 the Supreme Court of Victoria, Probate Jurisdiction, granted a probate of the Will of late Dorothy Mavis Shedden who died on July 29, 2004. A certified true copy of the Grant of Representation Annexure C issued by the Supreme Court of Victoria, Probate Jurisdiction, is also produced. 5. Pursuant to the execution of the power of attorney in his favour by the Executor of the Will, the petitioner herein, has filed the above petition for grant of Letters of Administration with copies of the authenticated copies of the Will annexed in respect of the estate of the deceased (testator) in India. 6. The deceased Dorothy Mavis Shedden and her brother George Reginald Upshon were the joint owners of the property bearing New # 6 (Old No.12), Elysium, Moyenville Road, Langfod Town, Bangalore 25. The deceased’s half share in the property is more particularly described in the schedule to the petition. 7. 6. The deceased Dorothy Mavis Shedden and her brother George Reginald Upshon were the joint owners of the property bearing New # 6 (Old No.12), Elysium, Moyenville Road, Langfod Town, Bangalore 25. The deceased’s half share in the property is more particularly described in the schedule to the petition. 7. The deceased, at the time of her death, was entitled to 50% of share in the said property (the balance 50% share belonging to her brother George Reginald Upshon), which after her death on 29.7.2004, devolved upon her legal heir, Adrian Maxwell Kenneth Shedden (Jr.) 8. George Reginald Upshon, at the time of his death, had a fixed place of abode at # 20, Arnold Street, Noble Park Victoria 3174, Australia. He left a Will dated 24.3.2010 wherein he appointed Arthur Roy Wayne Towt, as the Executor of the Will. The Executor applied for and obtained probate of the Will from the jurisdictional Court in Australia and has also appointed an attorney to apply for and obtain grant of Letters of Administration of the Indian estate of George Reginald Upshon, from the competent courts in India. 9. The petitioner submits that as the Will of the deceased has been proved and deposited in a court of competent jurisdiction in Australia and a properly authenticated copy of the Will is produced along with this petition, the petitioner is entitled to grant of Letters of Administration with copy of such copy annexed. 10. The schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court and hence, this Court has jurisdiction to try this petition for grant of Letters of Administration and hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of Letters of Administration of the estate of the deceased, Dorothy Mavis Shedden. 11. The grant of estates which are likely to come into the hands of the petitioner do not exceed in the aggregate sum of Rs.6,50,00,000/- as on January 22, 2016 and the same has been calculated with regard to the market value of the deceased’s half share in the said property. The gross and net amount of the said assets, after deducting all items which may by law be allowed to be deducted is under the value of Rs.6,50,00,000/- and the liabilities are nil. 12. The gross and net amount of the said assets, after deducting all items which may by law be allowed to be deducted is under the value of Rs.6,50,00,000/- and the liabilities are nil. 12. The petitioner also undertakes to administer the property and credits of the said deceased and to make a full inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court within six months from the date of grant of Letters of Administration to him and also to render to this Court a true account of the said property and credits within one year from the said date. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms Ranjana Iyer submitted that the paper publication in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 21.4.2016 of these petitions has already been carried out in the newspapers ‘The Hindu’, English daily and ‘Udaya Vani’, Kannada daily of 1.5.2016 and no objections for grant of such ancillary Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner has been received in this Court for the date of hearing fixed for 3.6.2016. 14. Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments in support of her submission that, in the absence of any objection to the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the present petitioner, for the absent Executor of the Will, the ancillary Letters of Administration can be granted in favour of the petitioner who administered part of the estate of the deceased in India. (i) In the matter of Tadimalla Subba Rao, AIR 1972 Mys 293 : (1972) 1 Mys LJ 578 (ii) Adwait Nath Sil, AIR 1948 ALL 351 (FB) (iii) Deputy Commissioner of … Vs Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb, 62 Ind case 513 The provisions of S.228, 241 and 291 of the Act are quoted below for ready reference. S.228: Administration, with copy annexed, of authenticated copy of Will proved abroad When a Will has been proved and deposited in a Court of competent jurisdiction situated beyond the limits of the State, whether within or beyond the limits of India, and a properly authenticated copy of the Will is produced, letters of administration may be granted with a copy of such copy annexed. S.241: Administration, with Will annexed, to attorney of absent executor When any executor is absent from the State in which application is made, and there is no executor within the State willing to act, letters of administration, with the Will annexed, may be granted to the attorney or agent of the absent executor, for the use and benefit of his principal, limited until he shall obtain probate or letters of administration granted to himself. S.291: Administration bond (1) Every person to whom any grant of letters of administration, other than a grant under S.241, is committed, shall give a bond to the District Judge with one or more surety or sureties, engaging for the due collection, getting in, and administering the estate of the deceased, which bond shall be in such form as the Judge may, by general or special order, direct. (2) When the deceased was Hindu, Mohammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person – (a) the exception made by sub-sec.(1) in respect of a grant under S.241 shall not operate; (b) the District Judge may demand a like bond from any person to whom probate is granted. 15. The following extracts from the relevant judgments cited by the learned counsel are also cited below for ready reference. Hon’ble E.S. Venkataramaiah, J (as his Lordships then was), in the matter of Tadimalla Subba Rao (supra) decided the question that on such cases for the absent Executor, that Letter of Administration can be granted under S.228 of the Act and not under S.241 of the Act because in a proceeding under S.241 of the Act, the Will of the deceased is required to be proved whereas S.228 of the Act deals with the cases of Will which already stands proved in a country outside India and on the basis of that, Letter of Administration can be given to a duly constituted power of attorney holder in India for administering the Will of the deceased in respect of estate situated within India. The relevant extract is quoted below for ready reference. “James Millar one of the executors having predeceased the testator, Robert Fair weather Alexander the surviving Trustee and executor under the Will assumed the office of the executor and appointed Mrs. The relevant extract is quoted below for ready reference. “James Millar one of the executors having predeceased the testator, Robert Fair weather Alexander the surviving Trustee and executor under the Will assumed the office of the executor and appointed Mrs. Euphemila Margaret Millar and David Smith to act along with him as the Trustees and Executors of the will and codicils of the testator in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the said documents by executing a deed dated 16.7.1970 at Kirriemuir, Scotland. Thereafter the will and the two codicils were duly proved along with the document of 16.7.1970 by which Mrs. Millar and Smith were appointed as Co-trustees and Co-executors before the Commissariat of Edinburgh, Scotland and the confirmation (probate) of the will and the codicils was granted on October 2, 1970. The certified extract of the confirmation and the certified copies of the will and the codicils and the deed appointing co-trustees and Co-executors are produced before this Court. Pursuant to the said grant, an Inventory of the Heritable Estate of the value of Pounds 83,3797/- in England and Scotland which belonged to the testator was filed before the Commissariat of Edinburgh which committed the same to the possession of the Trustees and the Executors by the certificate dated 6.10.1970, issued by the Depute Commissary Clerk. The certified extract of the aforesaid Inventory is also produced before the Court. Because the Trustees and Executors who were all residents of Scotland did not find it convenient to go to India for the purpose of obtaining the necessary letters of administration and to administer the properties of the testator which were in India, they appoint Sri. T. Subba Rao, the petitioner herein, and Sri M.K. Vishwanath, an advocate of Bangalore Bar to act as their lawful attorneys jointly and severally in connection with the obtaining of the letters of administration and the administration of the properties belonging to the estate of the testator, which were in India by a power of attorney dated 1.10.1970 executed before J.K. Shepherd, a Notary Public at Kiriemuir, Scotland. The said power of attorney is produced before this Court. The said power of attorney is produced before this Court. Pursuant to the said power of attorney, the petitioner herein has filed the above petition for the grant of letters of administration with the copies of the authenticated copies of the will and codicils annexed in respect of the estate of the testator in India. The necessary certificate issued under S.57 of the Estate Duty Act by the Controller of Estate Duty, Mangalore, is also produced. The net value of the estate in India is stated to be Rupees 4,51,321.16 in Annexure A attached to the petition. The petitioner has filed the above petition under S.228, 241, 278 and 300 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter refereed as the Act), S.278 of the Act deals with the particulars which an application for letters of administration should contain and S.300 confers jurisdiction on the High Court also to issue letters of administration. But the real question is whether the present case falls under S.228 or S.241 of the Act, one of the points of difference between the two sections being that whereas when the grant is made under S.241, no administration bond and sureties can be insisted upon under S.291, when the grant is made under S.228 the provisions of S.291 would be attracted. S.228 of the Act which is found in Chapter I of Part IX of the Act entitled ‘Of grant of probate and letters of Administration’ reads as follows:- 228. When a Will has been proved and deposited in a Court of competent jurisdiction situated beyond the limits of the State, whether within or beyond the limits of India, and a properly authenticated copy of the Will is produced, letters of administration may be granted with a copy of such copy annexed” Section 241 is found in Chapter II of Part IX of the Act dealing with ‘Limited Grants’. Sections 241 to 247 deal with such of those ‘limited grants’ which are made for the use and benefit of others having right. Section 241 reads: ‘241. Administration, with will annexed, to attorney of absent executor. Sections 241 to 247 deal with such of those ‘limited grants’ which are made for the use and benefit of others having right. Section 241 reads: ‘241. Administration, with will annexed, to attorney of absent executor. When any executor is absent from the State in which application is made, and there is no executor within the State willing to act, letters of administration, with the Will annexed, may be granted to the attorney or agent of the absent executor, for the use and benefit of his principal, limited until he shall obtain probate or letters of administration granted to himself.’ In this case it is shown that the will and the codicils have been proved and deposited with a competent Court in Scotland and properly authenticated copies of the will and the codicils have been produced along with the petition praying that the letters of administration may be granted with the copies of the same annexed. S.228 of the Act which authorizes the grant of letter of administration under these circumstances does not prohibit the issue of letters of administration under it to an attorney. But S.241 of the Act deals with an entirely different set of circumstances. It deals with a case where the executor is absent from the State in which the application is made and there is no executor willing to act within the State. Further S.276 of the Act, insists upon the original will and the codicils, if any, to be produced before the Court by the attorney or agent who could make the application for the benefit of his principal for the issue of letters of administration with the will and codicils. If any, annexed until his principal i.e., executor obtains probate or letters of administration to himself. On a perusal of S.241 of the Act it is clear that the said section is not applicable to this case because (i) grant prayed for is not of limited nature; (ii) the original will end codicils are not produced before the court; and (iii) the will and the codicils have already been proved before another court of competent jurisdiction and no attempt is made to prove them again before this Court. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the grant of letters of administration can be made only under S.228 of the Act in this case and not under S.241 of the Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the grant of letters of administration can be made only under S.228 of the Act in this case and not under S.241 of the Act. My view is fortified by the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Adwait Nath Sil. In the goods of Alexander James Miline late of Aberrdeen, Scotland, AIR 1948 AL 351 (FB). In that case also the facts were similar. The testator Alexander James Milne died possessed of properties in India and Scotland. By his will he appointed one Allan Hay as the executor who obtained confirmation of the will in the Sheriff Court of Aberdeen, Kindardine and Banff at Aberdeen. The executor then appointed Adwait Nath Sil as his attorney for the purpose of obtaining letters of administration from the competent Court in India with the copy of the will annexed, The question before the court in that case was whether S.228 of S.241 would apply to the case. Dealing with the said question Moothan, J. with whom the other two learned Judges agreed observed as follows: It is apparent that there is some difficulty in the application of either section to the case which we have to consider, for S.228 does not make provision for the grant of administration to an agent or attorney, and S.241 assumes production by the attorney of the original will; but looking at the scheme of the Act, it appears to me that if either section is applicable the more appropriate is S.228, the two sections are in my opinion intended to apply to very different circumstances, the former where the will has been proved abroad and the latter where it has not been proved at all; and accordingly a Court in India will, when acting under S.228, grant administration without further proof of the will, whereas, on a petition under S.241 he will has to be established and its authenticity may be disputed. With great respect to the learned Judges of the Madras High Court who decided the case in re Laurence Claude Levack in the matter of the will of Line Dalrimple Hay, AIR 1954 Mad 898 (FB), I find it difficult to agree with their view that S.241 which deals with a case of a limited grant is also applicable to a case like the present one. In the result, I allow the above petition and direct that letters of administration with the copies of the authenticated copies of the will dated November 16, 1959 and codicils dated 1.11.1964 and 6.5.1964 of John Hunter Alexander be issued to the petitioner”. 16. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Adwait Nath Sil .. in the goods of Alexander James Milnelate of Aberdeen, Scotland (AIR 1948 All 351) which was relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid case, also similarly held that for an absent Executor, the Letter of Administration can be granted under S.228 of the Act and grant under S.241 of the Act is of a temporary nature and Executor accepts to obtain probate or Letter of Administration granted to himself, as soon as he is able to make an application. The relevant part of the judgment is quoted below for ready reference. “In 1905 A W N 251 the application was for letters of administration with an authenticated copy of the will annexed, the original will having been lodged in the Court in England which had granted probate. This Court held that a grant could not be made under S.212 of Act 10 (x) of 1866 (which corresponds to S.241 of the present Act) as the original will was not available, but it indicated that it would have been disposed to make a grant under S.180 of that Act (corresponding to S.228 of the present Act) had the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner been couched in terms wide enough to permit him to make an application under that section. The court appears to have been satisfied or at least to have assumed that under S.228 a grant could be made to the attorney of the absent executor. The decision in the Madras case in ILR (1940) Mad.820 was in part based on the admission by counsel that S.228 did not permit an application being made by an agent. The court appears to have been satisfied or at least to have assumed that under S.228 a grant could be made to the attorney of the absent executor. The decision in the Madras case in ILR (1940) Mad.820 was in part based on the admission by counsel that S.228 did not permit an application being made by an agent. The facts in that case were on all fours with those in the present case, but the Madras Court held that a grant of letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed should be made to the attorney under S.241 Sir Lionel Leach, C.J., pointed out that since 1865 it had been the practice of the Madras High Court in such circumstances to grant letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed without requiring security to be furnished, and Krishnaswami Ayangar, J., stated that but for the uniform practice of the court, he would have been inclined to agree with the opinion of Somayya J., from whose decision the appeal had been filed, and of this Court in 1905 AWN 251, that the appropriate section was S.228. In view however of the long standing practice of the Court and in the absence, in the view of the court, of any other appropriate section, the conclusion was reached that the grant should issue under S.241. On a perusal of Ss.228 and 241 of the Succession Act it is clear that the former is the more appropriate section to apply to the facts of the present case. S.241 applies when the original will is produced and has to be proved and is meant for cases in which the grant asked for is of a temporary nature and the executor expects to obtain probate or letters of administration granted to himself as soon as he is able to make an application personally. The only difficulty in the way of applying S.228 is that letters of administration have been asked for not by the executor who is residing outside India but by his attorney. There seems to be nothing in S.228 or other relevant provisions of the Succession Act which may be taken as prohibiting expressly or by necessary implication the grant of letters of administration to an attorney in cases covered by S.228. There seems to be nothing in S.228 or other relevant provisions of the Succession Act which may be taken as prohibiting expressly or by necessary implication the grant of letters of administration to an attorney in cases covered by S.228. The Madras High Court did not consider this aspect of the matter and assumed that S.228 did not permit an application being made by an agent and this was apparently the main reason why that Court, following the long standing practice of that Court, held that S.241 and not S.228 applied to cases of this kind, I accordingly agree with my learned brother Mootham that, in the circumstances mentioned in the question which has been propounded, letters of administration with a copy of the authenticated copy of the will annexed may be granted to the attorney of the absent executor under S.228 and not S.241 of the Succession Act”. 17. Dealing with the aspect of payment of stamp duty on probate in the case of Deputy Commissioner Vs Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb, the Patna High Court way back in the year 1921, (62) Ind Cases 5132 has held as under: “The point established by this decision is that Probate duty is payable in respect of the property as to which a probate is granted; not in respect of the property which may be ultimately administered by the executor. But it is well to guard ourselves against a possible misconception that may arise from this statement of the law. When it is said that probate duty is not payable in respect of properties which are not the subject matter of the grant, but are ultimately administered by the executor, all that is meant is this; that such properties are not taxable because in respect of them probate was not granted. You may ultimately administer the assets either by virtue of the probate, or in spite of the probate; because the foreign bank has not closely scrutinized the grant. Where the grant covers the assets, probate duty is always payable. But to take the assets out of the Statute it must appear that the assets which are ultimately administered by the executor were altogether outside the grant. As the Lord Chancellor in the case cited said, the whole question is whether in respect of the foreign assets, a Probate was granted. But to take the assets out of the Statute it must appear that the assets which are ultimately administered by the executor were altogether outside the grant. As the Lord Chancellor in the case cited said, the whole question is whether in respect of the foreign assets, a Probate was granted. If it was, then clearly probate duty was payable; if it was not, then equally clearly probate duty was not payable. It will appear, therefore, that the test adopted both in this case and in the preceding case was this. Was there a grant of probate in respect of the assets which you are seeking to tax? The test was not whether the grant affected those assets. If the same test be applied to the present case (and the words in the English Statute are identical with those employed in the Indian Statute) it would appear that as there was a grant of probate by the District Judge of Midnapore in respect of the properties as to which administration under S.5 of the Probate and Administration Act has now been granted, probate duty was payable in respect of these properties before the grant of probate was made by the District Judge of Midnapore. It is quite clear that, so far as these cases are concerned, the only test which they lay down is this: Was there a grant in respect of the assets outside jurisdiction? Now interpreting the words used in S.5 in their natural meaning, can we say that the grant of letters of administration with a copy of a properly authenticated copy of the Will is the same as a grant of Probate or Letters of Administration with or without Will annexed? In my view the question is not one of technicality but of substance. The grant contemplated in Article 11, Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, is a grant made on an application under S.62 and S.64 of the Probate and Administration Act, that is to say, a grant made on an application to establish the Will or the representative character of the applicant, The grant under S.5 does not pretend to establish either the Will or the representative character of the applicant. It is merely an ancillary grant, giving efficacy to a grant already made by the Court on an application under S.62 of the Act. It is merely an ancillary grant, giving efficacy to a grant already made by the Court on an application under S.62 of the Act. If we apply certain tests which are ordinarily applied to grants of Probate or Letters of Administration, it will be seen that a grant made under S.5 of the Probate and Administration Act does not partake of the character of a grant made on an application under S.62 and S.64 of the Act. In the first place, an application for probate or for letters of administration must state certain necessary facts which are not required to be stated in an application under S.5 of the Act. For instance, the applicant under S.62 must state the amount of assets which are likely to come to his hand, and when the application is to the District Judge and any portion of the assets likely to come to his hand is situate in another province, the amount of such assets in each province and the District Judge within whose jurisdiction such assets are. It will be noticed that these facts are not required to be stated in an application under S.5. In my view the necessity for stating these facts in an application under Ss.62 or S.64 of the Act is this, that without these facts it is impossible to assess the proper court-fees payable on the grat”. However, this judgment is not of great assistance in the present case since this Court is not granting probate to the present petitioner in respect of the Will, which already stands granted in favour of the Executor by the competent Court of Australia and the present petitioner is only seeking an ancillary Letter of Administration from this Court under its original jurisdiction under S.228 of the Act for administering the property situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 18. In view of the aforesaid legal position and there being no objection from any quarter, this Court considers it fit and proper to grant the Letter of Administration to the present petitioner Mr. Parameshwaran Subramani in respect of the property of Mrs. Dorothy Mavis Shedden, the deceased in favour of her grandson and Executor of her Will dated 11.12.1998 in favour of Mr. Adrian Maxwell Kenneth Shedden (Jr.) in respect of half of the property in question situate at New No.6, (Old No.12), Elysium, Moyenville Road, Langford Town, Bangalore 25. Parameshwaran Subramani in respect of the property of Mrs. Dorothy Mavis Shedden, the deceased in favour of her grandson and Executor of her Will dated 11.12.1998 in favour of Mr. Adrian Maxwell Kenneth Shedden (Jr.) in respect of half of the property in question situate at New No.6, (Old No.12), Elysium, Moyenville Road, Langford Town, Bangalore 25. The petitioner will furnish the inventory and the accounts in respect of the said administration in terms of S.291 of the Act quoted above and shall also furnish the bond to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court in view of Rule 17 of the ‘Rules Governing Probate & Administration Matters, 1964’ (Notification No.SPL 327/63 dated 13.7.1964) which were notified in exercise of powers conferred by S.129 of the CPC, 1908 by Karnataka High Court. The said Rule is quoted below for ready reference: 17. Administration Bond:- An administration bond shall be in Form No.9. The Registrar shall, subject to the approval of the Court, determine the actual amount of security to be given and may examine the proposed sureties as to their properties and liabilities and for this purpose may direct notice to issue to the proposed sureties and adjourn the further hearing of the application to a fixed day by passing and order in Form No.10. The proposed administrator and his sureties when approved by the Court, shall execute the administration bond before the Registrar or other officer authorized to take affidavits. The bond shall be filed in Court not less than three days before the adjourned hearing. 19. The petitioner shall also preserve and maintain the said property for the benefit of the Executor of the Will, Mr. Adrian Maxwell Kenneth Shedden (Jr.) and the Executor of the Will shall be entitled to the said property and any accretion thereto and the proceeds in case he decides to dispose of the said property through the petitioner who would administer the said Will of the deceased in India and he shall also be liable to account for all the proceeds of the income and sale proceeds of the property situate in the State of Karnataka as directed by the Executor of the Will of deceased Mrs. Doroty Mavis Shedden. 20. Doroty Mavis Shedden. 20. The bond as required by R 17 shall be furnished by the petitioner to the said satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court with the approval of this Court in terms of the said Rule, quoted above. The petitions are thus disposed of. No costs. DATE: 20/07/2016 ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO MRS. RANJANA IYER, ADV. FOR PETITIONER For the reasons stated in the order dated 8.7.2016 deciding Prob.CP.No.1/2016 connected with this petition, the present petition is also allowed and the Letter of Administration is issued in the same terms in respect of the Will of deceased George Reginald Upshon, who was brother of the deceased in Prob.C.P.No.1/2016 viz., Mrs. Dorothy Mavis Shedden. In view of the aforesaid order and there being no objection from any quarter, this Court considers it fit and proper to grant the Letter of Administration to the present petitioner Mr. Parameshwaran Subramani in respect of the property of George Reginald Upshon, the deceased in favour of Executor of his Will dated 24.03.2010 in favour of Mr. Arthur R.W. Towt in respect of half of the property in question situate at New No.6, (Old No.12), Elysum, Moyenville Road, Langford Town, Bangalore-25. The petitioner will furnish the inventory and the accounts in respect of the said administration in terms of S.291 of the Act quoted above and shall also furnish the bond to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court in view of Rule 17 of the ‘Rules Governing Probate & Administration Matters, 1964’ (Notification No. SPL 327/63 dated 13.7.1964) which were notified in exercise of powers conferred by S.129 of the CPC, 1908 by Karnataka High Court. The said Rule is quoted below for ready reference: 17. Administration Bond:- An administration bond shall be in Form No.9. The Registrar shall, subject to the approval of the Court, determine the actual amount of security to be given and may examine the proposed sureties as to their properties and liabilities and for this purpose may direct notice to issue to the proposes sureties and adjourn the further hearing of the application to a fixed day by passing and order in Form No.10. The proposed administrator and his sureties when approved by the Court, shall execute the administration bond before the Registrar or other officer authorized to take affidavits. The proposed administrator and his sureties when approved by the Court, shall execute the administration bond before the Registrar or other officer authorized to take affidavits. The bond shall be filed in Court not less than three days before the adjourned hearing. The petitioner shall also preserve and maintain the said property for the benefits of the Executor of the Will, Mr. Arthur R.W. Towt and the Executor of the Will shall be entitled to the said property and any accretion thereto and the proceeds in case he decides to dispose of the said property through the petitioner who would administer the said Will of the deceased in India and he shall also be liable to account for all the proceeds of the income and sale proceeds of the property situate in the State of Karnataka as directed by the Executor of the Will of deceased George Reginald Upshon. The bond as required by R.17 shall be furnished by the petitioner to the said satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court with the approval of this Court in terms of the said Rule, quoted above. The petition is disposed of. No costs.