T. Arumuga Mudaliar and Another

Ramaswami, J.—The office has put up these papers for orders.

One Velu Mudaliar died intestate and two persons came forward asking for Letters of Administration and their petition was O.P. 295 of 1953.

The net assets in this case have been shown as Rs. 2600.

Notices having been issued and notifications having been made and all formalities prescribed by law having been complied with and no

opposition forthcoming. Letters were granted as prayed for oft 26-11-1953. The petitioners have neither submitted an inventory due on 26-5-

1954 nor the accounts they were bound to submit. Steps have been taken to contact the petitioner and firstly; the advocate who appeared for

them Mr. T.K. Rangaswami reported no instructions and then notices were issued through Court and they have been returned unserved with the

endorsement that the whereabouts of the persons who took out the Letters are not known. The office has therefore put up these papers for orders.

u/s 263, Succession Act, the Court which granted the Letters can revoke the same for just cause. The words ""just cause"" as explained in this

section are exhaustive. They are not illustrative merely: -- ''George Anthony v. Millicent Spencer'', AIR 1933 Bom 370 (A); -- ''Balgangadhar

Tilak v. Sakwar Bi'', 26 Bom 792 (B); -- ''Subroya Chetty v. Rangammal'' 2S Mad 161 (C); -- ''Surendra Nath v. Amritlal'', AIR 1920 Cal 584

(D); -- ''Gulam Ali v. Rahimatullah Khan'', AIR 1941 Rang 259 (E).

In the instant case we are concerned with Clause (e) of the Explanation to the section, viz., that just cause shall ho deemed to exist where the

person So whom the grant was made has wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the

provisions of Chap. VII of Part IX, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect:

The mere fact that the inventory required to be filed within six months of the grant has not been filed is not a sufficient cause unless it can be shown

that the inventory was withheld wilfully and unreasonably: -- ''Premchand Das v. Surendra'', 9 C W.N. 190(F); -- ''Goculdas v. Punishotam'', 4

Bom L. R. 979 (G); -- Hemlata Debi Vs. Radharaman Banerjee and Another, .

Similarly, under this sub-clause merely the failure to file an account within the specified time is not sufficient. But it must be established that the

person to whom the grant has been made wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit account. Also it is not sufficient that the inventory

account should he incorrect but it should be untrue in material respect. -- ''Venkataswami v. Subbarayudu'', AIR 1917 Mad 399 (I); -- '' Chandra

Kumar Chakravarti and Another Vs. Prasanna Kumar Chakravarti and Others, .

In the instant case the inventory has been with held wilfully and unreasonably and therefore falls within the ""just cause"" contemplated under the

Explanation to Section 263. Therefore the Letters of Ad ministration are revoked and letters are granted with his consent in favour of the

Administrator General.