IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 10252 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------ LAOP.1405/2008 OF II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- V.B.PREM NAZIR, S/O.V.A.BHASKARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, SUGUNALAYAM, EDAKOCHI, NOW RESIDING AT 3 B, KAYALORAM APARTMENTS, THEVARA, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SMT.R.S.GEETHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. J.GEETHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O.R.JAYARAMAN, 2/1783, GOWREESAPATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. RADHA BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.LATE T.K.BALAKRISHNAN, CHEMBOLIL HOUSE, OTTAPPALAM. 3. ARUN BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.LATE T.K.BALAKRISHNAN, CHEMBOLLIL HOUSE, OTTAPPALAM. ADV. SRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI FOR R2 SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN FOR R1 SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.7352 OF 2010 DISMISSED. 06.07.2010 ID/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION L.A. O.P. NO.1405 OF 2008. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF WILL EXECUTED BY LATRE DR.T.K.RAMACHANDRAN EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P(FC) NO.501 OF 1999 OF FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN L.A. O.P. NO.1405 OF 2008. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN I.A. NO.3900 OF 2009 IN L.A. O.P. NO.1405 OF 2008. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF PETITION I.A.. NO.3901 OF 2009 IN L.A. O.P. NO.1405 OF 2008. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A. NO.3900 OF 2009 IN L.A. O.P. NO.1405 OF 2008. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A. NO.3901 OF 2009 IN L.A. O.P. NO.1405 OF 209. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2009 IN I.A. NO.3900 OF 2009 IN L.A. O.P. NO.1405 OF 2008. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTED 5.2.2010 IN I.A. NO.3900 OF 2009 IN L.A. O.P. NO.1405 OF 2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.10252 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 06th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T In respect of Ext.P2, Will dated 24.05.2008 allegedly executed by one Dr.T.K. Ramachandran, petitioner, claiming to be the legatee under that Will sought Letters of Administration and filed L.A. O.P. No.1405 of 2008 in the court of learned District Judge, Ernakulam under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act (for short, “the Act”). Learned District Judge as per Ext.P4, order allowed the application and issued Letters of Administration. According to the petitioner none of the respondents in the said proceeding contested the application. Respondent No.1 is the divorced wife of the late Dr.T.K. Ramachandran (Ext.P3 is the order of Family Court dated 31.01.2000 granting divorce). After issue of Letters of Administration respondent No.1 filed Ext.P6, application seeking review of Ext.P4, order issuing Letters of Administration on various grounds mentioned therein. There was also Ext.P7, application for stay. Learned District Judge passed Exts.P10 and P11 orders. As per Ext.P10 order, a direction was issued to the Bank authorities to produce “related account and W.P(C) No.10252 of 2010 -: 2 :- details” and as per Ext.P11, order learned District Judge directed that “Bank records stand in the name of both or joint account. The party who does not agree with the records can take steps to prove the nature of account by examining bank officials”. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner contends that Exts.P10 and P11 orders are beyond the scope of jurisdiction of learned District Judge while considering an application for issue of Letters of Administration or for its review in that said provision does not contemplate an enquiry as to the title of the parties covered by the Will under challenge. As such learned District Judge was not correct in passing Ext.P10 and P11 orders as if an enquiry was being conducted into the title over amount in deposit in the joint account of respondent No.1 and the late Ramachandran. Learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the decision in Pappoo v. Kuruvila (1994 [2] KLT 278). It is contended by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that grant of Letters of Administration was wrong in that in spite of that application being opposed by respondent No.1 it was not converted into a suit as required under the Act and there are other grounds also justifying review of Ext.P4, order. According to the learned counsel it is pursuant to Ext.P6, application for review and as is required W.P(C) No.10252 of 2010 -: 3 :- considering the enquiry into the matter that learned District Judge passed Exts.P10 and P11 orders. 2. It would appear that there is some dispute regarding entitlement to the amount lying in the joint account of respondent No.1 and the late Ramachandran. Petitioner has a contention that the late Ramachandran had two flats which were disposed of and the amount was deposited in the joint account after he divorced respondent No.1. 3. It is not necessary for me to go into that controversy since decisions are aplenty that while entertaining application under Sec.278 of the Act for grant of Probate or Letters of Administration or for a review of the order granting Probate or Letters of Administration, the court is not required to go into title of properties dealt with in the Will. What the court is concerned with is only whether document produced is the last Will and Testament of the testator duly executed and attested by him as required under law or whether review sought for is allowable. Decisions of this Court in I.M. Madhavi v. Sree Ramavarma (AIR 1969 Kerala 256) and Narayana Pillai v. Krishna Pillai (1985 KLJ 145) and Pappoo v. Kuruvila (Supra) are to that effect. Hence learned District Judge could not W.P(C) No.10252 of 2010 -: 4 :- have gone into an enquiry as to title of amount in deposit in the joint account. That was alien for consideration of the matter pending before learned District Judge. Hence Exts.P10 and P11 orders cannot stand and are liable to be set aside. I make it clear that if respondent No.1 is apprehensive as to the entitlement of amount in deposit which respondent No.1 claims for herself, it is open to her to initiate other appropriate proceeding as provided under law. Resultantly, Writ Petition succeeds. Exhibits P10 and P11 orders are set aside without prejudice to the right of respondent No.1 to seek other appropriate remedies in respect of the amount in deposit in appropriate Forum and as provided under law. I make it clear that setting aside of Exts.P10 and P11, orders has no bearing on maintainability of the application for review pending consideration before the learned District Judge and that application will take its course. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv