Asthana, J. - (1.) A Division Bench of the Court while hearing a Special Appeal from an order of a learned single Judge granting Letters of Administration to the Administrator General, in respect of the assets of one Alexender John, doubted the correctness of the decision in the case of Mt. Ram Kali v. Administrator General of U. P., AIR 1943 All 356 and referred the following question to a Full Bench. "Whether the High Court can grant Letters of Administration to the Adminis trator General under the Administrator General's Act, 1913 where the deceased was an Indian Christian (and not an Anglo Indian)?"
(2.) THE Administrator General's Act 1913 (Act No. 3 of 1913) (hereinafter called the Act) is a consolidating Act relating to the office and duties of the Administrator General Subjection (2) of Section 2 of the Act defines "exempted person" as an Indian Christian, a Hindu, Mohammedan, Parsi or Buddhist or a person exempted under Section 332 of the Indian Succession Act, 1865, from the operation of that Act. Thus clearly an Indian Christian was an exempted person within the meaning of the Act. The term Indian Christian was also defined by sub-section (4) of Sec tion. 2 of tiiis Act as meaning a native of India who is or in good faith claims to be of unmixed Asiatic descent and who pro fesses any form of the Christian Religion. It may be of some interest to note that the Administrator General's Act of 1913 has now been repealed and replaced by the Administrator General's Act, 1963 (Act No. 45 of 1963). In the new Act there is no provision for "exempted person." Thus the question which has been referred in a way is now of mere academic interest and may not arise in future. At one stage during the course of the argument before us it was suggested at the Bar that the deceased Alexender John, regarding whose estate Letters of Administration were sought by the Administrator General, was an Angolo-Indian and not an Indian Chris tian. But that is a question which this Bench will not examine as the case before it is restricted to the question referred. In the Act of 1913 in its Part III, rights, powers, duties and liabilities of the Administrator General are prescribed. Under Section 6 as regards the Adminis trator General of any State the High Court of that State would be deemed to be a Court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of granting probate or letters of administration under any law for the time-being in force, wheresoever the estate to be administered were situate within such State. It would thus be seen that it is the High Court of a State which was con stituted as the forum from which the Ad ministrator General could seek the grant of Letters of Administration under any law for the time being in force to adminis ter an estate situate within the territorial jurisdiction of the said High Court. Sec tion 7 of the Act which has an important bearing on the question referred to us, may now be reproduced. It runs as follows:- "Any letters of administration, which are granted after the commencement of this Act by the High Court shall be grant ed to the Administrator General of the State unless they are granted to the next-of-kin of the deceased."
(3.) THEN follows Section 8 which runs thus:- "The Administrator General of the State shall be deemed by all the Courts in the State to have a right to letters of adminis tration other than letters pendente lite in preference to that of- fa) a creditor; or (b) A legatee other than a universal legatee; or (c) A friend of the deceased." The scheme is that when there is no next--of-kin of the deceased, the High Court is enjoined to grant letters of administration for the estate of the deceased to no other person except the Administator General and Section 8 gives him preference over tiie class of persons mentioned therein.;