KANTAIYAR v. RAMOE.
D. C., Jaffna, 1,334.
A dminietration—Application for letters of—Opposition thereto.
The fact of an estate being in value below the limit at whichadministration is compulsory is not a bar when a person otherwiseentitled to them applies for letters.
And it is no objection to his application that he declares his son Vby his deceased wife to be the sole heir of the – deceased, while therespondents claiming to be heirs of B declare that Bf who died in• infancy, was the true heir of the deceased wife.
The issue as to whether V or B is the heir should be tried subsequentlywhen the administrator enters upon the distribution of 'the estate.
N this case the petitioner applied for letters of administrationto tire estate of his deceased wife, who died in 1885. The sole
heir of the deceased was their son, a minor, and the sisters of thedeceased were made respondents. The application for adminis-tration was opposed on the following grounds:(a) that the
application was a stale one; (b) -that the estate was less thanRs. 1,000 in value; (c) that in C.R., Point Pedro, 8,511, where thepetitioner was one of the defendants, it was held that the allegedheir was not a son of the deceased. The learned District Judgeuptield the contention of the respondents and refused to grantletters of administration.
The petitioner appealed.
' Wadsworth, for appellant,—The Court ought to encourageadministration of estates, and the Supreme Court has repeatedlyheld that letters of administration should always be issued, however6tale the application may be (6. N. L. B. 194; 4 N. L. B. 201). Even .if the estate was of a value less than Bs. 1,000 administration shouldbe allowed, if application is made (7 S. C. 0. 50). Here is no proofthat the estate is a very small one. The Judge has not taken anyevidence. The Court of Bequests case is not res judicata. Thequestion whether the alleged heir was or was not the son of thedeceased has still to be decided. When the petitioner has appliedfor letters of administration to his deceased wife’s estate, he is byright entitled to be appointed administrator. It will be time forthe respondents to question whose child the heir is when theadministrator distributes the estate (1 S. C. R. 253).
14tb September, 1904. Wendt, J.—
In this case a husband applies for a grant of administration tothe estate of his wife, who died intestate in 1885. According to the
L 208 )
petition her sole heir was a son named Velupillai, now living withSeptember 14. his father, the petitioner. The respondents are sisters of theWraDT J. deceased, who, in the absence of the son, would have been her nextof kin. They oppose the application on two grounds, viz., (1) thatthe estate is less than Its. 1,000 in value, having in an earlierjudicial proceeding been sworn by the petitioner himself atBs. 900; and (2) Velupillai is not the son of the deceased, but of hersidter, the third respondent. The District Judge upheld both theseobjections.
As regards the first, it is sufficient to say that the fact of anestate being in value below the limit at which administration iscompulsory has never been held a bar when a person otherwiseentitled to them has asked for letters. See.fie Sheik Adam, 7 S.C. C. 50. The petitioner, as the husband, has a preferential rightto the grant under section 528 of the .Code. He being so entitled,it is no objection to his application that he declares his son,Velupillai, to be the sole heir, while the respondents assign thatposition to one Bama Vallipuram, who died in infancy, and whoseheirs they in turn claim to be. That question will be a proper oneto be tried between the respondents and the administrator in somesubsequent proceeding.
I think the order appealed from should be reversed and lettersof administration directed to issue to the petitioner. He will havehis costs of the appeal, but I think that each party should heap hisown costs in the District Court.
Sampayo, A.J.—I agree.
KANTAIYAR v. RAMOE