Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Reddy v Reddy [2000] FJHC 22; HPC0024D.1998S (7 February 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
PROBATE JURISDICTION

NO:HPC 24 OF 1998

IN THE ESTATE of CHINSAMI REDDY s/o MUNIAPPA REDDY late of Nacovi, Nadi, deceased, intestate.

BETWEEN:

MARIAMMA REDDY
Applicant

AND:

MUTTAP REDDY
Defendant

COUNSEL: Mr R. Naidu for Applicant
: Mr D. Naidu for Defendant

Hearing: 7th February 2000

Decision: 7th February 2000

DECISION

This is an application for the removal of a caveat lodged by Muttap Reddy (f/n Chinsami Reddy) preventing the grant of letters of administration in the estate of Chinsami Reddy. The application is made under section 47 of the Succession, Probate and Administration Act Cap. 60 and made by way of motion dated 4th August 1999, supported by the affidavit of Mariamma Reddy (f/n Chinsamy Reddy).

Chinsamy Reddy died on 27th December 1988. Mariamma Reddy, his daughter applied for letters of administration. Muttap Reddy, his son lodged Caveat No. 24/98.

On 10th April 1989, the High Court granted letters of administration to Alumelu Megamma, the deceased’s wife.

In the Oath of Administration, Alumelu Megamma stated that she and the deceased had had seven children. Alumelu Megamma died on 22nd April 1998.

Both Mariamma Reddy and Muttap Reddy then applied for letters of administration. Muttap Reddy lodged Caveat No. 24/98 in respect of the grant.

On 19th November 1998, the caveator was issued with a warning to caveator. No affidavit of service was filed.

However on 26th August 1999 the caveator filed Appearance to Warning stating his interest as “the lawful son of the deceased and one of the beneficiaries of the said estate.”

The affidavit of Muttap Reddy dated 26th August 1999 states that the Warning to Caveator had not been served on him until the 23rd of August 1999, that he with his siblings were the beneficiaries of the estate, that one brother was dead, and two of his sisters had renounced their interest in favour of Muttap Reddy and another brother Shiri Raman Reddy, that he and his brother were occupying the estate (consisting of a Crown Lease on 8 acres of cane farm land) and were farming the land. He states that he had paid off a debt of the estate of $2606.00 to the Westpac Banking Corporation, and had paid the Lands Department arrears in land rent in the sum of $328.32.

He further deposes that the applicant lives in Nadi farm, has not played any role in the cultivation of the estate.

At the hearing of the application, there was no appearance for the Applicant. Mr R. Naidu appeared for the caveator. He asked for the Motion to be dismissed on the ground that Muttap Reddy had shown a contrary interest.

Section 47 of the Succession, Probate and Administration Act Cap. 60 provide:

“In every case in which a caveat is lodged, the court may, upon application by the person applying for probate or administration, or for the sealing of any probate or letters of administration, as the case may be, remove the same.

(2) Every such application shall be served on the caveator by delivering a copy of the same at the address mentioned in his caveat.

(3) Such application may be heard and order made upon affidavit or oral evidence, or as the court may direct.”

In Rosy Reddy -v- Manchama Webb & Lawrence Webb Civil Appeal No. ABU0014 of 1994S, the Court of Appeal held that in an application for removal of caveat under section 47 of the Succession, Probate, and Administration Act Cap. 60, “... that for the purposes of removing a caveat ... the caveator is required to establish a contrary interest in the estate of the deceased.”

In this case, both caveator and caveatee have an equal interest in the estate under section 6 of the Act. Furthermore under section 7 of the Act, either party could be granted letters of administration.

However, Muttap Reddy deposes that two of his siblings have renounced their interest in his favour (and that of his brother) and that he and his brother have been cultivating the land. In the circumstances the uncontradicted evidence in the affidavit of Muttap Reddy, is that he and his brother Shiri Raman Reddy have shown an interest in the estate of their father, contrary to the interest of their sister Mariamma Reddy.

I note that the file holds a “Withdrawal of Caveat” by Muttap Reddy. On 7th February 2000, I requested both counsel to make submissions on this document in relation to this application. Counsel agreed that since the withdrawal was limited to allow the application for letters of administration by Muttap Reddy and Shiri Raman Reddy, it did not affect this application. I agree and place no weight on this document.

It seems clear that Muttap Reddy and Shiri Raman Reddy have shown an interest in the estate contrary to their sister’s.

For these reasons I refuse to remove Caveat No. 26/98 and dismiss the motion.

The Applicant is to pay the caveator costs of this application, which I fix at $100.00.

Nazhat Shameem
JUDGE

At Suva
7th February 2000