A revocation petition becomes infructuous once the administrator is removed and a successor appointed.

The petitioners sought revocation of Letters of Administration granted to respondent no. 1 in T.O.S. No. 2 of 1998 concerning the estate of A.J. Lazarus, her removal as administratrix, and appointment of petitioners no. 1 and 2 as joint administrators.

During the petition, the Court removed respondent no. 1 as Administrator on 7 July 2015 and appointed petitioner no. 2; later, by order dated 17 September 2021, it appointed Vincent Lazarus as succeeding Administrator.

The petition remained pending, in part because a withdrawal memo had been filed and service on some petitioners was incomplete.

The succeeding Administrator filed an inventory, and an earlier inventory filed in T.O.S. No. 2 of 1998 was also before the Court.

1. Whether the petition for revocation and removal required further adjudication after respondent no. 1 had been removed and a succeeding Administrator appointed.

2. Whether the inventory on record could be accepted and what further directions concerning the estate were required.

The petition invoked Sections 263, 301 and 302 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 263 concerns revocation or annulment of probate or letters of administration for just cause; Section 301 empowers the Court to remove an executor or administrator and provide for a successor; and Section 302 empowers the Court to give directions to an executor or administrator.

The Court did not interpret these provisions, apply a stated statutory test, or rely on any precedent; its order proceeded on the prior orders made in the testamentary proceedings and the procedural record.

The Court considered the relief sought substantially addressed because respondent no. 1 had already been removed and Vincent Lazarus had been appointed Administrator, without opposition to either step.

It therefore considered further notices and affidavit proceedings unnecessary and treated the petition’s purpose as concluded.

On the inventory, the Court noted that the current Administrator’s inventory corresponded with the earlier inventory as to immovable property, though it did not mention movable property.

It accepted the earlier inventory filed on 18 June 2007, which had complied with office objections and was comparable with the current Administrator’s inventory.

It made the 17 September 2021 order appointing Vincent Lazarus absolute, accepted the inventory filed on 18 June 2007, and directed Vincent Lazarus to file accounts.

Pending applications were dismissed as unnecessary.