In a recent legal development of Lata Rajesh Shetty @ Latha Rajesh Shetty v/s Satish Surappa Poojari, the Bombay High Court has ruled in favor of a petition seeking the revocation of Letters of Administration granted in May 2023. The petitioner, claiming to be a legal heir of the deceased, argued that the grant was obtained through procedural irregularities and a false suggestion. The case hinges on the proper application of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, which govern the procedure for issuing Letters of Administration.

The respondent, who had filed a testamentary petition seeking the grant of Letters of Administration with a Will annexed, claimed that the petitioner was one of the legal heirs of the deceased. However, the petition acknowledged that the whereabouts of the petitioner were unknown, leading to the citation being served via publication in local newspapers. The petitioner, however, contested this procedure, alleging non-compliance with the mandatory rules regarding personal service of citations. According to the petitioner, the respondent failed to make reasonable attempts to personally serve the citation before opting for publication, as required under the Bombay High Court Rules.

The petitioner invoked Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, which allows for the revocation of probate or Letters of Administration on grounds such as procedural defects or fraud. Specifically, the petitioner referred to Explanations (a) and (b) of Section 263, which address situations where the grant was procured through defective proceedings or fraudulent means, such as making false suggestions or concealing material facts.

In this case, the petitioner argued that the respondent’s failure to attempt personal service, despite knowing the deceased’s relationship to the petitioner, constituted a violation of Rule 399 of the Bombay High Court Rules. This rule mandates personal service of citations when possible, and only when that is not feasible, can the court permit publication under Rule 400.

The Bombay High Court analyzed the procedural steps taken by the respondent in the grant of Letters of Administration. According to Rule 399, citations must be served personally, and Rule 400 allows publication only when personal service fails. The respondent, however, claimed that the whereabouts of the petitioner were unknown, justifying the use of publication for citation service. However, the court found that the respondent did not provide any details regarding the last known address of the petitioner, which was a critical omission. The court emphasized that the address of the legal heir must be stated to guide the publication of the citation in the appropriate local newspapers, thereby fulfilling the purpose of citation service.

The court further noted that, under Rule 399, there must be an attempt to personally serve a citation at the last known address before resorting to publication. By claiming ignorance of the petitioner’s whereabouts without making a reasonable attempt to locate the petitioner or state the last known address, the respondent failed to comply with the legal requirements. The court concluded that this amounted to a false suggestion that the petitioner’s whereabouts were unknown, which could mislead the court and constituted grounds for revocation under Explanation (b) of Section 263.

In support of the petitioner’s claim, the court referenced the judgment in Abhiraji Bansraj Singh v. Vimal Narsingh Bahadur Singh (2010), which clarified the procedural requirements for citation service. The court distinguished the present case from Kamal Prasad v. Kumud Vaidya (2019), where the citation was correctly published after the petitioner provided addresses that could not be served personally. The court emphasized that in the present case, the respondent had not made an adequate attempt to locate the petitioner or provide the last known address, thereby making the case distinguishable from previous rulings.

In light of the procedural flaws and false suggestions in the testamentary petition, the Bombay High Court ruled that the grant of Letters of Administration in favor of the respondent should be revoked. The court granted the petitioner’s request and allowed the testamentary petition to be pursued in compliance with the proper legal procedures.

This decision highlights the importance of following due process and adhering to the prescribed rules when seeking the grant of Letters of Administration. Legal heirs must be served with citations in accordance with the law, ensuring that all parties are given a fair opportunity to object or raise concerns. This case serves as a reminder that courts will not overlook procedural irregularities, particularly when the grant is obtained through a flawed or misleading process.