Legal representatives do not become administrators by substitution; sale requires appointment and prior court permission.

The original petitioner, Jatindar Lal, had instituted proceedings under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (“ISA”) for Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 23 November 2017 executed by late Smt. Satish Kumari.

Under the Will, the Noida property was bequeathed absolutely to Jatindar Lal, while the Faridabad property was directed to be sold and the proceeds distributed as stipulated in the Will.

Letters of Administration were granted to him on 19 February 2020, subject to the requisite court fee and bonds.

Following his death on 26 April 2021, his legal representatives were brought on record under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, and the bonds were accepted on 3 January 2024.

The Letters of Administration required the inventory to be filed within six months and accounts to be rendered within one year, subject to further extension by the Court under Section 317(1) ISA.

The administration period had previously been extended by six months.

The Faridabad property was subsequently sold, but the Noida property remained to be dealt with.

The applicant, one of the legal representatives, sought a further six months to sell the Noida property and one additional month to distribute the sale proceeds.

The application was unopposed.

1. Whether the Court could enlarge the period for completing the administration of the estate, including the sale of the remaining property and distribution of the proceeds, under Section 317(1) ISA read with Section 151 CPC?

2. Whether the Noida property could be sold in the absence of prior permission under Section 307(2)(ii)(a) ISA?

3. Whether the legal representatives of the deceased administrator were competent to effect the sale merely because they had been substituted in the proceedings and had furnished the requisite bonds?

Section 317(1) of the ISA requires an executor or administrator to file an inventory within six months of the grant of probate or Letters of Administration and to render accounts within one year, while expressly empowering the Court to grant further time.

Section 151 CPC preserves the Court’s inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice, and may be read with Section 317 ISA to enlarge the administration period.

Under Section 307(2)(ii)(a) ISA, where the testator is a Hindu, an administrator cannot, without the previous permission of the Court that granted the Letters of Administration, sell immovable property vested in the administrator under Section 211.

Substitution of legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, and their furnishing of bonds, does not automatically appoint them as administrators or confer authority to administer or sell estate property.

The Court held that the statutory power to extend time was available because Section 317(1) ISA expressly permits the Court to appoint further time, supplemented by its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC.

Sufficient cause was established: the Faridabad property had already been sold, the Noida property alone remained, and a substantial portion of the delay resulted from the time required to serve the non-appearing respondents, who ultimately had to be served by publication.

Since the application was unopposed and no prejudice was shown, enlargement of time was justified.

However, the Court distinguished extension of time from authority to sell.

Because the Will absolutely bequeathed the Noida property to Jatindar Lal rather than directing its sale, any sale required prior permission under Section 307(2)(ii)(a) ISA.

Further, his legal representatives had only been substituted procedurally and had not thereby become administrators; a competent administrator first had to be appointed.

The extension was conditional upon the applicant, or another person legally entitled, being appointed as administrator in place of the deceased petitioner and obtaining the requisite permission under Section 307 and/or other applicable provisions of the ISA before selling the Noida property.

The order did not adjudicate or confer any rights, title, or interest in the estate, determine the inter se rights of beneficiaries or legal representatives, or dispense with statutory obligations relating to stamp duty and taxes.

The application was accordingly disposed of.