THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3002 of 2002 ORDER: One Sri K.Subrahmanyam Patnaik, the deceased, had two sons, by name Bhanu Kiran and Venu Gopal, and one daughter by name Radhamani. Sarojini Devi is his wife. He is said to have executed a will, dated 18.08.1992 in respect of an item of immovable property in favour of his grand son, by name Ujwal Kiran, appellant herein, son of Bhanu Kiran. Subrahmanyam Patnaik died on 14.09.1992. O.P.No.1070 of 1997 was filed by the appellant herein against his grand mother, 3rd respondent, paternal aunt, 1st respondent and paternal uncle, 2nd respondent under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for grant of letters of administration. The O.P. was opposed by the respondents. Through its order, dated 18.06.2002, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Hence, this appeal under Section 384 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The O.P. out of which the appeal arises was totally untenable. Firstly, the O.P. under Section 278 can be filed by a guardian himself for the protection of interests of a minor. The O.P. however was filed by the minor represented by his guardian. The second reason is that the Civil Courts in the State of A.P. are not vested with the jurisdiction to grant probate or letters of administration. This Court in Inkollu Sasikala vs. Inkollu Venkata Murthy[1] made this aspect clear. It is no doubt true that the trial Court framed a point for its consideration and voluminous evidence in the form of oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and R.Ws.1 and 2 and documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A.1 and A.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.14 apart from Exs.X.1, X.2, S.1 to S.8, Q.1 and Q.23 was adduced. All that, however was in an O.P., which was not at all maintainable. At any rate, the necessity for seeking letters of administration has ceased to exist, since the appellant i.e., the alleged legaty has since attained the age of majority. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed as infructuous. If the appellant still feels that there exists any necessity to enforce his rights under the alleged will, it shall be open to him to institute necessary proceedings. In such an event, the findings recoded by the trial Court in the O.P. shall not be treated as final. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 26.08.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.3002 of 2002 Date: 26.08.2010 JSU [1] 2004(6)ALT 18