1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION MISC. PETITION NO. 37 OF 2009 IN PETITION NO. 795 OF 2007 Priya Anand & ors........Petitioners versus Jaswant Singh Sachdev & ors ........Respondents. Mr. S.K. Jain for the Petitioner. Mr. Pankay Kawali i/b K.K. Associates For the Respondents. CORAM: MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 15TH November, 2010. P.C.: 1. This petition is filed for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted by this court in respect of the property in which the petitioners are interested as beneficiaries. The property belonged to one Jaswant Singh Sachdev (deceased). 2. After the death of the deceased the parties entered into a family settlement dated 1-6-2005. The parties decided the respective percentage of shares that they would obtain. These parties were sons, the daughter-in-laws, grand sons and grand daughters of the said deceased. 3. After obtaining the family settlement, the properties have to be sold. These were immovable properties left behind by the 2 deceased and his late wife. The full authority was given to respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein for the sale of properties. The mandatory proceedings with regard to those transactions would, nonetheless have to be carried out. Therefore respondents 1 and 2 filed the petition for Letters of Administration of the estate of the deceased. The grant obtained by the respondents is challenged essentially on the ground that some of the members of the family were not disclosed as the heirs and legal representatives. The petition shows certain members of the family and sons and daughters of the deceased. They, in turn, represent their entire family, though the names of all their family members have not been given. 4. Whereas in the ordinary course, this would have meant gross violation if those members of the family who are not shown as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased in the petition for Letters of Administration, in view of the family settlement where each of their shares have been specified with regard to all the immovable properties of the deceased, absence of their names, or names of members of their families representing their branch (which was shown), was not an issue which would give the relevant beneficiaries no share. 5. It is also contended that the main property of the deceased has not been mentioned in the petition for grant of Letters of Administration. 6. The petitioner states that the accounts of the estate have not been given to them. That would be the only dispute between 3 the parties, because the properties of the deceased had to be sold for the shares in the required agreed percentages and proportions to be allocated and distributed amongst the beneficiaries for which the authority was to be given to those who filed the petition for Letters of Administration. 7. If the accounts have not been given and the accounts which were given are not satisfactory, civil action in that regard for recovery of their shares or payment of debts and liabilities of the deceased would be the remedy. Such a petition has to be filed in competent court, which is stated to be at Delhi, since most of the properties of the deceased are at Delhi. 8. Certain incorrect statements are indeed seen to be made in the petition after it was filed, with regard to the composition of the families of some of the brothers. The respondents concede that incorrect statements were made. They were essentially for obtaining the grant expeditiously to proceed with the administration of the estate of the deceased as per the family settlement. The statements have not deprived any of the petitioners of their rightful dues. 9. It is also contended that the affidavits of consent of the family members have been filed prior to the filing of the petition itself. This is in consonance with and in terms of and as a consequence of the family settlement which was arrived at which requires the grant of power of this court to respondent nos. 1 and 2 for administration of the estate of the deceased. 10. These anomalies do not show any “just cause” which is 4 required to be shown for revocation of the grant. No fraudulent act to deprive any family members is shown. Of course the petitioners will be entitled to the account of the administration carried out by the respondent nos.1 and 2 and for which the separate suit has already been filed. Under these circumstances the petition stands dismissed. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)