Letters of administration cannot be granted to a registered society, but an authorised nominee may apply for its benefit.

Sections 223 and 236 of the Indian Succession Act bar grant of probate or letters of administration to an association of individuals, and a society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not treated as a company or juristic person for that purpose. The Court held that the language of the statute is plain and cannot be expanded to create an exception for societies or to supply a casus omissus. A testamentary benefit intended for a society is nevertheless preserved because an authorised office-bearer or nominee may apply for and hold the grant for the society's benefit, and the petition may be amended accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 can be granted letters of administration under Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and whether such relief can instead be sought through a duly authorised office-bearer of the society.

Analysis: Sections 223 and 236 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 expressly bar grant of probate or letters of administration to an association of individuals, except a qualifying company. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is not a company or a juristic person for this purpose, even though it may have certain representative capacities under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The statutory language is plain and unambiguous and must be given its ordinary meaning; the Court cannot add an exception for societies on grounds of convenience, nor can it supply a casus omissus. At the same time, the testamentary benefit in favour of a society is not defeated, because an authorised person nominated by the society may apply and hold the grant for carrying out the testator's wishes for the society's benefit.

Conclusion: A registered society cannot itself be granted letters of administration under Section 236 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, but the grant may be pursued through a duly authorised nominee of the society.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view was modified, and the matter was sent back so that the respondent society could amend the petition and seek grant through a nominated office-bearer.

---