It is also stated that the testatrix R.Nirmala had died on 02.12.2018. After following v. was directed to tender evidence. Accordingly
Case Details
Acts & Sections
7. Admittedly, none of the applicants had been impleaded as respondents in the Original Petition. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, it had been stated that the Will is a fabricated one and the deceased had never informed the applicants about the execution of the Will. It had also been stated that these applicants are class - II legal heirs of the testatrix and stand on the same footing as that of the petitioner in the main Original Petition who is also a class - II legal heir of the testatrix. 8. It is also to be noted that the applicants had filed a genealogical table. The respondent sought time to get further instructions in the genealogical table. But the fact is that the respondent, the class II legal heir, should have impleaded all the class - II legal heirs who have caveatable interest. More so, even if these applicants are not been impleaded, once the Letters of Administration is granted, then a right in rem is created and owing to such right in rem, every person affected by grant of Letters of Administration has a right to question the grant.9. There are two aspects which are needed to be dealt with. The first is that these applicants are also class - II legal heirs and stand on the same footing as the petitioner in the Original Petition. The other one is that owing to grant of Letters of Administration, a right in rem had been granted to the petitioner in the Original Petition and therefore, these applicants have a right to seek revocation as they are necessary parties who should have been impleaded and have not been impleaded in the main petition. Illustration(ii) 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 is very clear on this particular aspect.10. In the genealogical table, it had been stated that the ancestor of the family is one Palayam Pillai. He had a son named Parthasarathy Pillai. The first applicant is the grand daughter of the said Parthasarathy Pillai. The testatrix is the wife of the son of yet another son of Palayam Pillai. Naturally, all the legal heirs are available as class - II legal heirs. It is not just the petitioner in the Original Petition alone. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent had placed a repeated request that he should also be heard. When the family tree is filed and once a right in rem had been created, any third party who had an interest in the Will which had been executed, has a right to seek revocation. It is also stated that taking advantage of the grant of Letters of Administration, the respondent herein had begun to demolish the property. It is for that reason, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the respondent. 12. The matter was actually being listed on earlier dates. A counter has been filed and the copy of the counter has also been served. The fact that these applicants are class - II legal heirs is not denied or disputed. The fact that a right in rem has been created has not been disputed. Then every class - II legal heir should be heard and opportunity should be given to them. In view of that reason, the of Letters of Administration granted by 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis order dated 25.02.2022, stands revoked. This application stands allowed. No costs. 11.07.2024gsk 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.gsk A.No.2535 of 2024 inO.P.No.539 of 202111.07.20246
7. Admittedly, none of the applicants had been impleaded as respondents in the Original Petition. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants, it had been stated that the Will is a fabricated one and the deceased had never informed the applicants about the execution of the Will. It had also been stated that these applicants are class - II legal heirs of the testatrix and stand on the same footing as that of the petitioner in the main Original Petition who is also a class - II legal heir of the testatrix. 8. It is also to be noted that the applicants had filed a genealogical table. The respondent sought time to get further instructions in the genealogical table. But the fact is that the respondent, the class II legal heir, should have impleaded all the class - II legal heirs who have caveatable interest. More so, even if these applicants are not been impleaded, once the Letters of Administration is granted, then a right in rem is created and owing to such right in rem, every person affected by grant of Letters of Administration has a right to question the grant.9. There are two aspects which are needed to be dealt with. The first is that these applicants are also class - II legal heirs and stand on the same footing as the petitioner in the Original Petition. The other one is that owing to grant of Letters of Administration, a right in rem had been granted to the petitioner in the Original Petition and therefore, these applicants have a right to seek revocation as they are necessary parties who should have been impleaded and have not been impleaded in the main petition. Illustration(ii) 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 is very clear on this particular aspect.10. In the genealogical table, it had been stated that the ancestor of the family is one Palayam Pillai. He had a son named Parthasarathy Pillai. The first applicant is the grand daughter of the said Parthasarathy Pillai. The testatrix is the wife of the son of yet another son of Palayam Pillai. Naturally, all the legal heirs are available as class - II legal heirs. It is not just the petitioner in the Original Petition alone. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent had placed a repeated request that he should also be heard. When the family tree is filed and once a right in rem had been created, any third party who had an interest in the Will which had been executed, has a right to seek revocation. It is also stated that taking advantage of the grant of Letters of Administration, the respondent herein had begun to demolish the property. It is for that reason, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the respondent. 12. The matter was actually being listed on earlier dates. A counter has been filed and the copy of the counter has also been served. The fact that these applicants are class - II legal heirs is not denied or disputed. The fact that a right in rem has been created has not been disputed. Then every class - II legal heir should be heard and opportunity should be given to them. In view of that reason, the of Letters of Administration granted by 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis order dated 25.02.2022, stands revoked. This application stands allowed. No costs. 11.07.2024gsk 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.gsk A.No.2535 of 2024 inO.P.No.539 of 202111.07.20246