K.Veerakumar Vs J.Jeyasingh and 4 others

Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 263 of Indian Succession Act to revoke the grant of Letters of Administration dated 05th October 2021 granted in favour of the petitioners on the ground suppression of facts in O.P.No.650 of 2020.

¶22

For Applicant(s): Mr.M.Ramesh

¶23

For Respondent(s): Mr.Aloysicus Raja Pragash

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This application has been filed by the applicant to revoke the grant of Letters of Administration granted in favour of the petitioners in the main petition through order dated 05.10.2021.

¶26

According to the applicant, he is the 3^rd party to the main original petition and

¶27

the respondents 1 to 5 filed the Main Original Petition for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the property of the deceased J.Paulraj. The deceased Paulraj executed a Will dated 26.04.2017 declaring the properties in favour of the applicant and also in the name of his father, namely, S.V.Krishnamoorthy, Jothi and Uncle’s daughter, viz., R.Lucy. The main Original Petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein claiming that they are the legal heirs of the deceased J.Paulraj. In the meantime, the said Jothi, filed a petition for Probate the Will before the District Court, Nagapattinam and the same is pending. Now only the applicant

¶28

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

¶29

came to know about the Letters of Administration granted to the respondents 1 to 5 in the main petition through order dated 05.10.2021, therefore, by suppressing the said Will, the respondents 1 to 5 have obtained the order, thereby the said Order dated 05.10.2021 granting Letters of Administration, has to be revoked.

¶30

The respondents filed counter stating that the assets described in the petition

¶31

belongs to Paulraj S/o Jeyaraj. The deceased Jayasingh is the own brother of the said Paulraj. The said Paulraj married one Parvathi and they had no issues. The said Paulraj died on 12.09.2017 leaving behind brothers, viz., Jeyasingh, Rajasingh, and sister Rajathi Leela and the said Parvathi died on 15.05.2016. The said Rajasingh died on 17.11.2009 and the legal heirs of deceased Rajasingh are Margert Stella Bai, R.Lucy, R.Sophy. The legal heirs of the deceased Paulraj have filed the main Original Petition for grant of Letter of Administration. This Court also granted Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioners in the main original Petition. While so, the applicant, Jothi and the said Veerakumar have fraudulently created a Will and these respondents are well aware that the deceased Paulraj never executed any Will in favour of anyone during his life time. After fabricating the Will, the applicants have initiated probate proceedings with the delay of six years.

¶32

4.1. The applicant, viz., Veerakumar is none other than the reared sister’s son of

¶33

Parvathi wife of Paulraj and the said deceased Paulraj never executed any Will. The

¶34

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

¶35

averments that the said Parvathi provided education to the reared Jothi’s brother’s son, Veerakumar education are all false. The mortgaged loan secured with HDFC Bank, Tiruvarur District has already been settled with these respondents by paying Rs.19,75,000/- on 26.05.2023 and the loan was discharged by the bank through the receipt dated 26.05.2023. During the life time of deceased Paulraj, he informed that at request of Kannan, mortgage loan was obtained and the amount was paid to the said Kannan. Further, the said Kannan did not repay the amount towards the said loan and the entire dues were subsequently settled by these respondents after the demise of deceased Paulraj.

¶36

4.2. The said Jothi and Veerakumar had concocted and created several false debts and liabilities in the name of the deceased in order to give colour genuineness to the fabricated Will. At the time of filing of the main Original Petition, no Will of deceased Paulraj was in existence. The said Paulraj was closely associated with Jeya Singh, who filed the Main Original Petition seeking Letters of Administration. After Letters of Administration was granted in the Main Original Petition, the said Jeya Singh passed away. After having knowledge about the orders passed by this Court, the applicant, Jothi initiated probate proceedings before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in O.P.No.98 of 2023. The deceased Paulraj died on 26.04.2017, whereas the probate proceedings were only initiated in the year 2023 with an inordinate delay of six years, therefore, the petition is barred by limitation. The

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

applicant had deliberately added R.Lucy as party in the present Application. After amendment, the main Petition was duly considered and ordered in accordance with law, after following the procedure. Accordingly, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondents filed the main Original Petition for grant of Letters of Administration with reference to J.Paulraj alleging that they are legal heirs of deceased Paulraj and he died intestate and obtained orders from this Court. In fact, the said Paulraj executed Will dated 26.04.2017 bequeathing the properties in favour of the applicant, K.Veerakumar and also in the name of applicant’s father, Krishnamoorthy, Jothi and R.Lucy, suppressing the said Will, the respondents filed the Main Original petition and obtained orders without including the applicant as party to the petition. Already, the Civil Suits are pending in respect of the properties of the said Paulraj in O.S.Nos.374 of 2010 and O.S.No.16 of 2016 and O.S.No.47 of 2016 on the file of District Court, Kanchipuram.

¶41

Further, the said Jothi has already filed a petition before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam for probate of the Will of the deceased J.Paulraj and the same is pending, therefore, by suppressing the facts, the Original Petition has been filed for grant of Letters of Administration, therefore, the said order is liable to be revoked.

¶42

5/7

¶43

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

¶44

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 would submit that

¶45

these respondents, who are petitioners in the main petition, are the legal heirs of the deceased Paulraj and by impleading all the legal heirs, next kin of the said Paulraj, the said petition has been filed. The said Paulraj never executed any Will in favour of anybody. The applicant has filed the petition by creating a Will and they filed the Will after six years from the date of death of deceased J.Paulraj. This Court after hearing both sides on merits, granted Letters of Administration, therefore, there is no ground to revoke orders passed by this Court.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the

¶47

respondents 2 to 5 and perused the entire documents placed on record.

¶48

In this case, during the pendency of the application, the 1^st respondent, viz., J.Jeyasingh died and no steps have been taken to implead the legal heirs of the 1^st respondent and thereby the present application is abated.

¶49

Accordingly, the present application is dismissed as abated for not taking steps for the deceased 1^st respondent, viz., J.Jeyasingh.

¶50

16.02.2026

¶51

Index: Yes / No Internet : Yes No ssd

¶52

6/7

¶53

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

¶54

P. DHANABAL, J.,