Allowed

Lalitha Rangarajan and 2 Others v. No Respondent

Madras HC23 Apr 2024OP/407/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants Letters of Administration without Wil annnexed to the deceased, Mr. A. Rangarajan, intestate, to the first petitioner, his wife, following recorded evidence and consent from other heirs. The administrator is directed to execute a bond and render annual accounts.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration without Will annexed granted; bond for Rs.25,000/- directed; annual accounts required.

Lalitha Rangarajan and 2 Others Vs No Respondent — Succession and Inheritance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

O.P.No.407 of 2023

¶3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶4

This Original Petition has been filed taking advantage of Sections 232 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 along with relevant rules of the Original Side of Madras High Court seeking grant of Letters of Administration without Will annexed relating to the properties which were vested with the deceased, Mr.A.Rangarajan who died intestate on 27.11.2021. The 1^st petitioner is his wife and the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioner are his son and daughter.

¶5

2.Since they tendered evidence through video conference, my learned predecessor had directed that the evidence may be recorded by the learned Additional Master – III, where alone the video conference facility is available.

¶6

3.The 1^st petitioner was examined as PW-1 and she produced Ex.P2, the Death Certificate of her husband, R.Rangarajan and Exs.P3 and P4, copies of the Partition Deed and Settlement Dated 20.03.2000 and 10.01.2017 respectively. The Encumbrance Certificate of the property was marked as Ex.P5.

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶8

¶9

4.Taking the evidence into record and also the fact that the other two petitioners have given consent affidavits, I hold there is every reason to grant the relief sought in the Original Petition namely, granting Letters of Administration without Will annexed.

¶10

5.It is also made clear that the evidence was recorded by the learned Additional Master – III, only owing to the fact that the video conference facility was available only in that particular Court.

¶11

6.With the above observations, this Original Petition stands allowed.

¶12

The 1^st petitioner is directed to duly administer the properties and credits of the deceased more fully described in the schedule. The 1^st petitioner is directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) in favour of the Assistant Registrar (O.S.II) High Court, Madras. The 1^st petitioner is further directed to render true and correct accounts once in a year.

¶13

23.04.2024

¶14

smv

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

¶17

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

smv

O.P.No.407 of 2023

23.04.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Lalitha Rangarajan and 2 Others v. No Respondent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalitha Rangarajan and 2 Others v. No Respondent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Vs State Rep by

Ponbaskar Vs State Rep by

S.Mohideen @ Basha Vs State Rep. by

Srinivas Vs the Inspector of Police

K.S.Subramanian Vs S.Karpagavalli and 4 Others

Nagapushanam Vs Sita and 9 Others