Authored By : Francis Maclean, Banerjee

Francis Maclean, C.J.

1. This appeal arises out of an application for revocationof Letters of Administration with the will annexed, the application being madeon the 10th of October 1898, and the Letters of Administration having beengranted on the 21st of June 1892, The will set up is dated the 2nd October1882: it will thus be seen that no application for Letters of Administrationwas made, although we are informed that executors had been appointed by thewill, till nearly ten years after the date of the alleged will.

2. The alleged testator left two sons as his heirs, and fromthe date of the fathers death up to the time of the Letters of Administrationbeing granted, they had, throughout, dealt with the property as his heirs, andat no time was there any suggestion made that the father had left a will. Theyhad mortgaged and sold the property and dealt with it entirely as their own;and the present applicant for revocation of the Letters of Administration isthe purchaser of a large portion, if not the bulk, of the fathers property,under decrees in mortgage suits in respect of mortgages made by the two sons.The mortgages and the decrees in the mortgage suits were anterior in point ofdate to 21st of June 1892, though the actual date of the purchase wassubsequent to that time. Under these circumstances, the only question submittedfor our decision is, whether the applicant had any locus standi to apply forrevocation of these Letters of Administration. I think he had. He stoodvirtually in the shoes of the two sons, who claimed to be the heirs, and whohad dealt with the property, as the sole owners of it. The applicant was thepurchaser from the heirs, and, if the heirs could have applied for revocationof the Letters of Administration, I do not see why the purchaser could not doso, he being in the same position as they were. He was not in the position ofan ordinary creditor, but was the purchaser from the heirs. I think, therefore,that, if the heirs were entitled to sue for revocation of the Letters ofAdministration, the purchaser from them had a locus standi to make a similarapplication. This view seems to me to be consistent with certain decisions ofthis Court, namely, the case of Komol Lochun Dutt v. Nil Ruttun Mundle I. L. R.(1878) Cal. 360 and also the very recent case of Muddun Mohun Sircar v. KaliChurn Dey I. L. R. (1892) Cal. 37 On these grounds I think the appeal fails andmust be dismissed with costs.

Banerjee, J.

3. I am of the same opinion.

.

Lalit Mohan Bhuttacharjeevs. Navadip Chandra Kaparia(30.05.1901 - CALHC)