1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. MISC. PETITION NO.65 OF 2008 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.385 OF 2006 Teckchand Tejumkal Bakhru. ...Petitioner. Vs. Sangita Gope & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr. S.A. Sawant with Ms.Gunjan Shah for the Petitioner. Mr.Satish Kamath for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. September 4, 2009. P.C. The Petitioner has sought a revocation of the Letters of Administration issued on 29th August 2006 in Petition 385 of 2006. The submission is that the Respondents had suppressed material facts in the Petition filed for Letters of Administration and had made statements which to their knowledge were untrue. 2. On 20th September 2001, the Petitioner filed a Petition 2 before this Court in the testamentary jurisdiction for the grant of probate in respect of a will alleged to have been executed by Mohini Dharmdas Kripalani on 26th July 2001. The Petition was dismissed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master for non-removal of office objections under Rule 435 of the High Court Original Side Rules on 11th July 2005. By an order of a Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22nd February 2008, the order passed by the Prothonotary was set aside and the petition was restored to file, subject to the removal of office objections within twelve weeks, failing which the Petition was to stand dismissed. Thereupon, the Respondents have filed a caveat in the Probate Petition on 19th December 2008. 3. The Respondents filed a Petition for the grant of Letters of Administration on 17th April 2006. In the petition, there was an express averment to the effect that no application has been made to any District Court or District Delegate or to any High Court for probate of any will of the deceased or for Letters of Administration with or without will annexed. 3 4. The Petitioner has instituted a suit before the City Civil Court being S.C. Suit 4462 of 2001 to which the mother of the Respondents was joined as a party Defendant. The suit was for an injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner in respect of a residential flat. In the suit, an interlocutory order was passed by the Learned Trial Judge on 28th August 2001, recording that the Court has perused a copy of the will, the reference being to the will upon which the Petitioner was placing reliance. Thereafter, the Respondents instituted a suit before this Court for possession against the Petitioner being Suit 3057 of 2007. In paragraph 9 of the Plaint, the Respondents made a disclosure of the suit instituted by the Petitioner before the City Civil Court. In paragraph 10, the Respondents pleaded that the claim of the Petitioner in the suit before the City Civil Court is false and there appears the following averment: “(g) Mohini Dharamdas Kripalani had therefore during life time made a Will of her own free consent, bequeathing the suit flat to the Defendant and also made a nomination in his favour with M/s.Shiv Shopping Center Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., for consideration and transfer of rights in the suit flat after her death. A copy of the nomination form is annexed to the Plaint of the said City Civil Court suit as Exhibit C thereto.” 4 5. The important point to note is that, in the suit which the Petitioner had instituted before the City Civil Court, the Petitioner had expressly relied upon the will allegedly executed by the testatrix. The Respondents on their part in the suit before this Court adverted to the claim of the Petitioner based on the will and set forth their case that the claim was false. 6. Notwithstanding this, when the Respondents applied for the grant of Letters of Administration before this Court on 7th April 2006, they failed to make a disclosure of the fact that the Petitioner herein was to their knowledge, claiming under the will alleged to have been executed by the testatrix. In paragraph 3 of the Petition for the grant of Letters of Administration, the Respondents stated that the deceased had died intestate and that though a due and diligent search had been made for a will, none had been found. This Court, therefore, was not informed of the fact that to the knowledge of the Respondents, the Petitioner had sought to propound a will of the deceased. A reference to the will was also contained in the suit 5 instituted by the Petitioner before the City Civil Court as well as in the suit which was subsequently instituted by the Respondents for possession before this Court. 7. In these circumstances, there is merit in the submission which has been urged before the Court by the Petitioner that the grant of Letters of Administration which proceeded on the basis of a suppression of the material facts from the Court would have to be revoked. 8. The Petition shall accordingly stand allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). .....