1 rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL (L) NO. 363 OF 2009 IN MISC. PETITION NO. 84 OF 2007 IN PETITION NO. 37 OF 2002 Pritamdas Bhagia .. Appellant Vs Ram Naraindas Vaswani and Another .. Respondents Mr. A.M. Saraogi for the Appellant Mr. U.J. Makhija and Mr. Amin Kherada for the Respondents CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 28th January, 2010 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Saraogi, the learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Makhija, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. In Testamentary Petition No. 37 of 2002 filed by the Petitioner, Letters of Administration came to be granted on 02.03.2007. However, the present Respondents filed Misc. Petition No. 84 of 2007 in Testamentary Petition No. 37 of 2002 under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and they claimed to be the trustees 8.appl363-09 2 of the trust by name ‘Bawa Santokhdas Jairamdas Trust’. By the impugned order dated 23.03.2009, grant of Letters of Administration came to be revoked. The only issue, we are, therefore, required to consider is, ‘Whether the impugned order is justified?’ 3. Bawa Santokhdas Chela of Bawa Jairamdas died on 15.06.1968 and he had set up a temple at Worli Naka and sometime in 1952, he had acquired flat no. 1 at Indus Court, A-Road, Churchgate, Mumbai on ownership basis as well as another premises in Bhagwandas Chawl at Pune on rental basis. There was a temple established by the deceased at Churchgate as well as Pune. At the time of his death, he was residing at Gurpat Sahib Darbar, 1, Indus Court, “A” Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 001. On the application made by the present Appellant, the Letters of Administration was granted on the basis that the deceased died intestate. 4. However, in the Misc. Petition No. 84 of 2007 filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, it is claimed that the deceased had executed his last Will on 30.11.1963 and it was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Bombay under serial No. 1574 8.appl363-09 3 of 1967 of Book No. III on 21.09.1967. It was, therefore, prayed that the Letters of Administration granted earlier on 02.03.2007 was required to be revoked. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order. The scheme of section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not leave any doubt. The application filed under the said section pointing out that the deceased had left a Will behind and he did not die intestate, was by itself a sufficient ground to revoke the Letters of Administration. The Letters of Administration was applied for on the basis that there was no Will and consequently, when the Will was brought on record or discovered, the Letters of Administration liable to be revoked and the same thing has been done in the impugned order. 6. We do not find any error in the said order so as to cause interference in this Appeal. 7. Hence, the Appeal fails at the threshold and the same is dismissed in limine. 8. However, it is directed that the Testamentary Petition No. 37 of 2002 shall be clubbed together with Testamentary Suit No. 20 of 2008. 8.appl363-09 4 9. We, make it clear that the rights and contentions of the parties in pending proceedings are left open. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.] 8.appl363-09