Administration suit

Appellant filed application for Administration of suit property and respondent/objector joined proceedings and claimed the property to be Benami and that actual owner was his father

Trial Court converted administration petition into a civil suit and objection filed by respondent/objector as written statement

Validity

Contentions of respondent/objector could not be addressed within the framework of an administration petition

Even if there were allegations of Benami ownership, allowing respondent/ objector to file a written statement allowed him to "side-step" the procedure and "frog-leap" the vested rights of legal heirs of deceased owner in their administration proceedings

Essential goal of administration proceedings was to ascertain the extent of deceased individual's estate and ratio within which it was devolved amongst the legal heirs

Simply agitating that there was a Benamdar, did not translate automatically into impleading a stranger in administration matter

Such challenges could not be deemed sufficient to dismiss an administration petition or challenge an administration suit's validity

Respondent/objector could prove his claim before proper forum subject to all just exceptions

Respondent/objector had no right to participate any further in administration proceedings filed by legal heirs of deceased owner

Respondent/objector was at liberty to agitate his right in separate proceedings

Contents of judgment of High Court in Administration petition were confined to that judgment alone and could not be taken as decided/settled case

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

If rights of a stranger, who is not a sharer, are involved, 'administrative suit' is not competent and such rights are to be determined through separate proceedings provided under law.

Suit filed by petitioners / plaintiffs were preliminarily decreed in their favour but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit

Validity

Parties were to lead evidence keeping in mind burden of proof placed upon their shoulders while formulating issues

Issues framed by Trial Court did not cover real controversy and provisions of O. XIV, R.1, C.P.C. were defiled

Evidence was led after framing of issues

Stage of framing of issues is very important in trial of civil suit because at that stage real controversy between parties is summarized in shape of issues and area of conflict is narrowed down and determination is made regarding where parties differ and then parties are required to lead evidence on such issues

Importance of framing correct issues can be seen from the fact that parties are required to prove issues and not pleadings as provided by O.XVIII, R. 2, C.P.C.

Court is bound to give decision on each issue framed as required by O. XX, R.5, C.P.C.

Courts while framing issues should pay special attention to O. XIV, C.P.C. and give in depth consideration to pleadings etc.

If proper issues are not framed, then entire further process becomes meaningless and is a wastage of time, energy and may further delay final decision of suit

Trial Court did not ponder upon pleadings of parties while framing issues and could not sum up the real controversy into issues thus, further proceedings were of no use

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and the matter was remanded to Trial Court

High Court directed Trial Court to frame issues, by considering pleadings of parties, especially with regards to maintainability of suit, which would be decided at first instance and then to decide the suit afresh

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Before passing a determinative decree, rights of parties are to be determined, especially when different stances as to Religious school of thought of deceased were taken

In such view question of maintainability of suit has to be considered and decided at first instance before proceeding further in the case.

Decree-holder did not file execution petition but decree was satisfied by Nazir of the Court and report was submitted before the Court

Validity

Application for satisfaction of decree was filed before Nazir of the Court by the counsel who was not authorized by the decree-holder

Power of attorney should have been obtained from the decree-holder and application should have been filed for satisfaction of decree through Nazir after satisfying the Executing Court as to why judgment-debtor had failed to satisfy the compromise decree

Executing Court was to apprise of the circumstances in which judgment-debtor i.e. plaintiff's real brothers and sisters had failed to fulfil their promise when they were living with the plaintiff

Nazir had acted without jurisdiction and on the willful and mala fide persuasion of counsel; had unlawfully executed sale-deed of suit property which was liable to be cancelled and declared as unlawful and was not supposed to act as judicial officer/presiding Judge of Executing Court to entertain application for satisfaction of decree and satisfy the same and at his own send a report to the Court for order of satisfaction of decree in the disposed of suit

If anything was lawful but it had been done unlawfully then it would become unlawful

Illegality committed by Nazir could not be allowed to perpetuate rather it was the duty of the Court to direct him to reverse the consequence of illegalities committed by him as an officer of the court

Decree-holder was issued show-cause notice as to why sale-deed executed by Nazir of the Court without lawful authority should not be cancelled

Nazir was directed to collect original registered sale-deed executed by him from the plaintiff and no further transaction was to be allowed to the plaintiff

Additional Registrar (O.S) was directed to hold inquiry with regard to execution of sale deeds by the Nazir on the basis of compromise decrees from January 2014 till date in the cases in which present counsel had obtained compromise decrees and without filing an execution petition same were satisfied by the Nazir.

Parties would be at liberty to file an application for allotment of said Ihata and if filed the same should be decided in accordance with law by the competent authority

Revision was disposed of accordingly.

Object of administration suit was to determine as to what estate the deceased had left and same could not be achieved without an inquiry

Mere denial that specific property was not owned by the deceased alone would not be sufficient to hold such a suit not maintainable nor the same could prevent the Court from an inquiry in that regard

Plea of gift by one of several legal heirs, about one of the properties in question could not disturb the competence of suit within meaning of O. XX, R. 13, C.P.C.

Said one defendant was bound to establish a valid gift

No cogent and confidence inspiring evidence had been produced in support of plea of gift as raised by the said defendant

Defendant had not disclosed the date, time and place when and where suit property in question was gifted to him and the property was still in the name of the deceased owner

Said defendant never attempted to get the title transferred in his favour during life time of alleged donor

Mere assertion or promise to make a gift was not sufficient to dress up such person as lawful donee nor such promise or assertion should attain status of a gift

Mere claim or a lis was not sufficient to deprive other legal heirs from their rights of inheritance

Legal heirs of the deceased would become co-owners in the suit property when the owner died

Suit property was liable to administration and could not possibly be partitioned

Nazir of the Court was appointed as Receiver with the power to auction the suit property

Suit was decreed accordingly.

Plot in question was not subject matter of plaintiff's claim in the suit but same was treated as subject matter on the basis of an admission made by the defendant-respondent that same was also the property of deceased

Said admission was only to the extent of 4-1/2 marlas of subject plot

Defendants had denied that subject plot was of seven marlas

No issue was framed with regard to two marlas and fifteen yards of the plot

No evidence was led by the plaintiff to show that plot vested in the deceased on his demise in excess of four marlas and fifteen yards

Infact two marlas and fifteen yards of subject plot was a separate property

If judgment on the admission of the defendant had to follow then it could only have been for the admitted four marlas and fifteen yards of the plot

Remaining two marlas and fifteen yards of the plot was not subject matter of suit

Impugned judgment to the extent of two marlas and fifteen yards was set aside and was to remain intact to the extent of remaining land

Application for setting aside of decree was disposed of in circumstances.

Plaintiffs could not assert any ownership in the suit property and consequently their possession until gift in favour of defendant was proved to be fabricated and invalid in the trial

Defendant had allowed the plaintiffs to reside in the suit house temporarily

Plaintiffs having invoked the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, question whether defendant qualified for possession of suit house or not was to be decided by the Court seized of said proceedings

Order accordingly.

Defendants had stated in their written statement that they did not intend to create any third party interest in the suit property

Plaintiffs had prima facie case and balance of convenience in their favour in circumstances

Defendants were restrained from creating any third party interest in any part of suit property and from parting with possession any part thereof

Application for temporary injunction was accepted in circumstances.

Administration suit was the appropriate forum for determination of all matters between the heirs including an issue as to whether or not the deceased had title to any property being claimed by an heir and whether such property formed part of the divisible estate

Appellants had not availed the remedies that were open to them at the appropriate stage and had allowed the proceedings in the administration suit to advance to the conclusion

Impugned order did not warrant any interference

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Defendants intending to keep the property with them directed to deposit the share amount of plaintiff within a period of six months failing which auction proceedings in favour of auction purchaser should stand restored

Auction purchaser would be at liberty to withdraw/collect his amount from the Nazir

Application to keep the property by the defendants was accepted in circumstances.

Purpose of a suit for administration was to have the estate of the deceased administrated by the court.

Court could for the purpose of achieving the object of such a suit besides determining the question of title to any property determine the existence or validity of any alienation of property not only by other persons after the death of deceased but also by deceased himself during his life time

Court could take over charge for determining property and entire process of realization, payment, settlement and distribution of assets of deceased had to be made under the supervision of court

Factual controversy could only be resolved upon leading comprehensive evidence by the parties to the suit

No preliminary decree was passed in the suit for appointment of an administrator to administer the properties of the deceased under the supervision of court

No administrator was appointed by the Trial Court to administer the properties left by the deceased and accounts of the properties were not ordered to be rendered by the Trial Court

Mandatory requirements had not been fulfilled by the Trial Court which had vitiated entire proceedings

Impugned judgments and decrees were set aside

Case was remanded to the Trial Court for adjudication afresh in terms of preliminary decree which should be passed in respect of only those properties which were in the name of deceased and in case properties were not in the name of deceased then commissioner/administrator be appointed to record evidence of the parties

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Object of O. XX, R. 13(2), C.P.C. was to determine as to what estate deceased left at the time of his death, administration thereof, payment of debts and liability and partition of rest of estate between the heirs

Prima facie, ultimate object of 'administrative suit' was that of partition/distribution of shares among legal heirs of what estate a deceased had left at time of his/her death, but after payments of debt and liability

Person qualifying the test of 'heir' of deceased, a 'creditor' or even a 'legatee' could competently file administration suit either for his share in estate of deceased or for his due against deceased.

Suit should qualify status of administration suit when administration of a property/estate under decree of court was required as temporary arrangement till payment of debts, liabilities and distribution/partition of residue among legal heirs if it strictly revolved around credit, legates and legal heirs alone.

If relief sought affected independent claim of a stranger, it would be beyond scope of administration suit and a separate suit will be competent

To maintain a suit within capacity of administration suit against stranger it was necessary to show that such stranger was a sharer

Although scope of administration suit was widened even to probe into titles but such was made subject to condition that it should revolve around sharer only and it was with an object to avoid multiplicity of lis but confining scope to extent of sharer was sufficient to establish that nature and character of administrative suit was different from that of an ordinary civil suit

In an administration suit, final decree was to follow result of an inquiry within meaning of O. XX, R. 13, C.P.C. while in an ordinary suit, determination of rights and status was dependent upon full fledge trial

Suit for administration should sustain where an administration of an estate/property of deceased was required for said purposes within said three status i.e. creditor, legatee and legal heirs/sharers alone

Matters where no such questions were involved nor an administration as a temporary arrangement was required then suit would normally be one of ordinary in nature regardless of the fact that it may be among sharers for their legal entitlement or by a creditor/legatee against legal heirs, seeking payment of his/her due against deceased under whom legal heirs claim.

Contention of applicant was that she was minor at the time of auction of suit property and sale agreement between her mother and auction purchaser was void

Validity

Joint application was without proper consent of guardian as one of legal persons was minor

Parties were bound to have brought into notice of Court that one applicant was minor

If auction had been completed as per procedure then same would protect the entitlement/right of the minor

Neither a consent or assent of one would dress as illegal act as 'legal' nor it should be a cause to deviate from mandatory requirement of law and procedure

Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. could only be filed challenging legality of a judgment/decree or order which was capable of being enforced

Such application could not sustain against a right to file a separate suit

Status of an agreement was nothing more than a right to file a suit for enforcement thereof

Object of S.12(2), C.P.C. was meant to provide a remedy to challenge legality of a decree or order and it was not substitute for an independent suit for enforcement of an independent right even if arisen from an order passed in a suit/proceedings

Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was not sustainable in circumstances

Consent of minor in absence of proper appointment of her guardian would never bring the minor under any legal obligation

Impugned order being not in accordance with law was set aside

Suit property would be transferred in the names of legal heirs

Letter of administration was allowed in circumstances.

Object, scope and purpose.

All properties could be included in the suit for administration if there was allegation against such properties that same were benami and were purchased by the deceased with his own funds.

Controversy was as to which properties would belong to the plaintiff and which did not, and in which property the plaintiff and defendants were entitled to get their shares

Such matter could only be decided on leading evidence by the parties

Application for grant of temporary injunction was allowed and defendants were restrained from selling, alienating, disposing of and creating third party interest in the movable and immovable properties including the shares in the company during the pendency of suit till final decision.

Relinquishment deed was un-registered document which was not read-over and explained to the plaintiff before getting her signature or thumb impression thereon

No suggestion was put to the plaintiff during cross-examination that she had signed or gave thumb impression with her conscious knowledge on the relinquishment deed knowingly that she was receiving her share from the properties left behind by her deceased father

No credibility could be attached to the said document

Defendants had failed to prove that they had already paid the share of plaintiff from the properties left by her deceased father in accordance with Shariah

Plaintiff had not been paid her share in the properties and she had not relinquished her share

Plaintiff was entitled to a preliminary decree for administration of properties left by her deceased father

Preliminary decree for administration of estate of deceased was passed and Receiver was appointed.

Plaintiffs had claimed their shares in the suit property being legal heirs of the deceased who was owner of said property

Claim of defendant that suit property was given to her in lieu of her dower and/or against loan was yet to be established

Plaintiffs were legal heirs of the deceased and were entitled to inherit from his estate, if any

If a person had died issueless then his siblings would become entitled to a share in his estate

Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and Trial Court was directed to decide the suit on merits

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Administration suit was meant to determine as to what estate the deceased left at the time of his death; administration thereof; payment of debts and liability and partition of rest of estate between the heirs.

Order passed under O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. would be prohibitory in its nature whereby one was prevented from doing what he was otherwise doing under some title

Party had to establish all three ingredients i. e. prima facie case; balance of convenience and apprehension of irreparable loss or legal injury to be in his favour for grant of injunction

All three ingredients should co-exist and if one of the ingredients was missing the application could not sustain

Question of limitation or laches was not significant in the matter of inheritance

Claiming a right or waiving thereof were different from each other which, being with regard to factual controversy, would require evidence

Properties in question were under the control and management of defendants

Balance of convenience was in favour of defendants

Plaintiffs had to establish their claim to the estate left by the deceased through evidence

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs had not brought claim till date of filing of present suit

Plaintiffs had not approached the court promptly

Defendants would suffer an irreparable loss if temporary injunction was granted in favour of plaintiffs

Plaintiffs had failed to establish co-existence of all three ingredients in their favour

Application for temporary injunction was dismissed in circumstances.

Suit for administration was only a formality to determine the mode of distribution of the estate of the deceased amongst the legal heirs according to the Shariah

Court would act only as an administrator in such suit for a limited purpose

Plaintiff was required to satisfy the court in a suit for administration and partition, his status as legal heir of the deceased and proprietary rights of the deceased in the estate at the time of opening of succession

Question of limitation in case of joint family properties did not arise

In the present case, none of the properties mentioned in the schedule were part of the estate of the deceased

Plaintiff could not seek administration and partition of the disputed properties

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

Question of limitation in case of joint family properties did not arise.

Court had jurisdiction to administer the estate left behind by the deceased in an administration suit which was situated beyond the jurisdiction of court.

Contention of defendant was that earlier suit on same cause of action and seeking same relief was dismissed and present suit was barred under O.IX, R.9, C.P.C. as well as on the principle of res judicata

Validity

Earlier suit was dismissed under O.IX, R.3, C.P.C. but not under O.IX, R.8, C.P.C. as neither the defendant nor the plaintiff were present before the court

Plaintiff could bring fresh suit under O.IX, R.4, C.P.C.

Right to file suit for administration of property left by the deceased did not extinguish by afflux of time

Application for rejection of plaint was dismissed in circumstances.

Right to file suit for administration of property left by the deceased did not extinguish by afflux of time.

Contention of plaintiff was that she being wife of deceased was entitled for deferred dower as well as share from his property whereas defendants contended that plaintiff had been divorced by the deceased and she was not legal heir to claim inheritance-Validity-Plaintiff was given Talaq-e-Bain and no question of reconciliation would arise

Such Talaq would become effective the moment same was pronounced-Plaintiff was not entitled for any inheritance however claim of dower amount was debt on the property of deceased which was to be paid first.

Decree under O.XX, R.13, C.P.C. read with O.XX, R.18, C.P.C. in a suit for partition/administration had distinct features

Limitation had estopped once the earlier suit for partition of estate of deceased was filed

Issue of inheritance could not be raised again and again between the same parties

Neither second suit for partition of estate of deceased nor second succession application under S.372 of Succession Act, 1925 could be filed

Plaintiff was not legal heir of the deceased as his mother who was alive at the time of opening of succession had excluded him from the legacy to claim share in the estate

No suit for administration of estate could be filed by someone who was not amongst the legal heirs of deceased at the time of opening of succession to claim anything by way of inheritance

Present suit for administration of estate of grandfather should be dismissed as grandson was not entitled to claim in the estate of grandfather

Mother of plaintiff had died after the death of her both parents and plaintiff had not claimed inheritance on the basis of son of pre-deceased daughter

Plaintiff could not claim anything from the estate of deceased in circumstances

Plaint was rejected accordingly.

Scope of such provisions could not extend to Muslims in the context of legal heirs holding shares in the estate of deceased

Estate of deceased Muslim would devolve on the legal heirs at the moment of his death as per their respective shares

Legal heirs were co-owners of the estate but were not joint owners

Interest of each legal heir in the estate was separate and same was not joint property

Suit was not barred in terms of Article 127 of Limitation Act, 1908 therefore, application for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

Plea raised by defendants was that plaintiffs did not efforts to seek possession of house in question, for the past 12 years

Validity

Plaintiffs though were not residing in the house in question but it was deemed to be devolved amongst all legal heirs of deceased mother

Possession of one defendant was deemed to be the possession of all legal heirs

No categorical denial existed to the effect that property was owned by deceased mother

High Court declared that property was liable to be devolved amongst all legal heirs of deceased mother being inherited by them and preliminary decree was passed under O.XX, Rule 13, C.P.C. in respect of house in question

Suit was decreed accordingly.

Plaintiff claimed that property in question was gifted in her name by deceased in his life time, therefore, it did not stand in his name at the time of his death and could not be questioned in administration suit-Plea raised by defendant was that since gift in question related to a matter that was among the heirs, validity of 8ift could be determined in administration. suit

Validity

Nature of administration suit was limited, inasmuch as it was intended only to settle issues and matters among the sharers-When such considerations were balanced, the proper test to establish whether the determination lay within the scope of an administration suit or beyond which was: if determination did not disturb inter se position of sharers and affect all sharers equally, then the question would lie outside the scope of administration suit-If however, determination affected and upset inter se position of sharers and might give one or more of the heirs advantage over the others, then the question would lie within the scope of administration suit and it was immaterial whether alienation sought to be challenged was by way of registered instrument or otherwise

Preliminary decree passed by Trial Court was set aside and case was remanded to Trial Court for a decision on the issues pertaining to gift of property in question made in favour of plaintiff by the deceased in his lifetime

Intra-Court Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Necessary ingredients.

Trial Court passed preliminary decree thereby determining the shares of parties on the report of the local commission and arriving at the conclusion that the ordinary mode of partition through division and distribution inter se the legal heirs was not possible

Local commission was directed to conduct the auction of the. properties subject matter of suit filed by respondent and receiver was appointed for partition

Appellants/defendants raised objections to the report of the local commission but the same were rejected by the Trial Court which was not appealed against by the defendants who instead elected to assail the order directing auction of the suit properties through first appeal

Validity

Order rejecting objections to the report of local commission, having not been assailed either in appeal or in revision, had attained finality and the vires of the said order could not be allowed to be argued under the garb of assailing the order directing the local commission to conduct auction

Counsel for petitioner did not argue in support of any mode to partition the suit properties other than auction

Order passed by the Trial Court did not suffer from any illegality

Justice had been done, the respondent who even offered to sell the share to the appellants in order to bring an end to protracted litigation but the offer was not accepted by appellants who requested for remand of the case to Trial Court; request of the appellants could not be entertained as it was likely to set aside the order which had attained finality on the ground of having not been challenged within prescribed limitation

Report of the local commission was not only comprehensive but also fair and just

Appeal being without merits was dismissed.

Application by plaintiff under Ss.151 & 152, C.P.C., for amendment of final decree to include therein other properties of deceased already admitted by defendant and also established on record

Defendant's plea was that plaintiff might file separate suit with regard to such omitted properties

Dismissal of such application by Trial Court

Validity

Trial Court, in exercise of its powers under O.XX. R.13, C.P.C., could make an inquiry regarding estate of deceased

Such inquiry could be made at any time before passing final decree

Under provisions of Partition Act, 1893, order of sale of joint property would be treated and implemented as final decree

Such order of sale would not debar court from continuing with such inquiry

Such inquiry could be conducted without interfering with process of sale already ordered

Plaintiff through such application had prayed for such inquiry with reference to evidence on record

High Court directed Trial Court to consider such application as an application for inquiry to determine assets of deceased and fix separate dates for sale proceedings and such inquiry.

Object of administration suit is the distribution of assets between more than one person and if the defendants to a suit be only transferers and the plaintiff is the person solely entitled there can be no administration suit by such a plaintiff against such defendants

While an administration suit is not a remedy for getting possession from those who claim the property in their possession in their own right, and adversely to the deceased, there does not appear to be any valid objection to their dispossession if they claim only as heirs or under a will from the deceased and their claim is negatived

Question as to whether a person is entitled to a share in the property of the deceased is a fit subject of decision in an administration suit.

No proof of any gift ever having been made by the deceased father in favour of the respondent (son); essentials of gift were conspicuously missing in the transactions as well; only for the reason that bald claim of the gift had been made by the respondent in defence without proving or substantiating the transactions to be of that nature, shall not take the case out of the scope and realm of the "administration suit" or the "suit for partition", which could be said to be a suit of composite nature, therefore, in the circumstances, it was not necessary for the appellants to have first asked for the relief of declaration to challenge the ostensible ownership of the respondent qua the properties in question

Appellants had brought a family settlement envisaging in unequivocal and in unambiguous terms the acknowledgment by the parties as to what were the properties, which formed part of estate left by the deceased father; respondent himself had brought on record same document in original

,Plea of respondent that the said document was got executed from him on account of any coercion was absolutely not spelt out from any independent evidence produced by him, rather there was a vital and visible contradiction and shifting of the stance set out in the written statement and his deposition

Such was a complete departure from the pleadings of the respondent

Respondent was a highly educated person, thus, when he had admitted the, execution of the settlement, he could not take up the plea that he was not aware of the contents of the document, besides the story propounded in the statement that the document was got signed the next month after the burial of the father before boarding the plane was beyond the scope and contrary to his pleadings, which had to be ignored by the court

Execution of family settlement was admitted by respondent but he wanted to avoid the effects of the contents ,pf documents on any ground such as lack of free consent etc.

Heavy burden thus, lay on the respondent to prove his version, which burden had not been discharged by him rather from his contradictory stance and also for the reasons that he himself had brought on the record the said document, thus, he shall be bound by the acknowledgment and the admission about the estate of his father given therein

Trial Court had glaringly overlooked such important piece of evidence and had disallowed the suit only for the reasons that the properties in question were ostensibly in the name of respondent

Such approach of Trial court was absolutely against the law because the production of the family settlement in fact had knocked the bottom out of respondent's case about the alleged gift as he had claimed

High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court through which the. relief regarding certain properties/assets was refused to the appellants and upheld it to the extent the relief was allowed to them, the preliminary decree for administration and partition vis-a-vis the immovable properties as also for the Bank accounts under the head movable assets, if the accounts were in the name of deceased father, as the same had not been denied in the written statement was also passed in favour of appellants and against the respondent.

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Purpose of a suit of administration was to administer the assets and properties left by deceased under decree of Court and distribute same among heirs or persons entitled to same.

O. XXIII, r. 3 read with Appendix D, Form No. 17-Administratim suit-Compromise-Preliminary compromise decree not recorded in Form No. 17 prescribed under Appendix D-Objection to such decree on plea of fraud and being detrimental to minors, parties to suit, held, maintainable-Decree being preliminary, suit was still pending am plaintiff could not, in circumstances, be driven to necessity of filing separate suit-Decree, held, could be corrected by Court.

Administration suit In its broad sense administration includes the collection of assets of a deceased, the payment of debts and the distribution of the residue to persons beneficially entitled under the will of the testator or on his intestacy. In an administration suit the steps are: ascertainment of the debts due by the deceased, ascertainment of legacies, payment of deceased's funeral and testamentary expenses, enquiry into the deceased's assets, and enquiry and account of what, if any, was the plaintiff entitled to as next-of-kin of the intestate, and the distribution of the residue among the successor of the deceased, and that the Court when passing a preliminary decree In an administration suit, may give such directions and order such enquiries to be made as it may consider' appropriate in the circumstances of the case. In the narrow sense, however, administration means only management of the deceased's estate, that is, only collection of his assets and payment of his debt.

Administration suit -Competent where an alleged heir (defendant) pleads a will in his favour, or plaintiff disputes entitlement to inheritance of other defendants-Civil Procedure Code (Y of 1908), O. XX, r. 13 read with O. 1, r. 10, Form 41, Appendix A.