1. This is an appeal by one Ram Das against an order of the District Judge of Jhansi refusing to grant letters of administration to him under Section 219(f), Succession Act of 1925. That sub-section lays down:
When there is no person connected with the deceased by marriage or consanguinity who is entitled to letters of administration and willing to act, they may be granted to a creditor.
2. This sub-section shows that before letters of administration can be granted to a creditor, it must be shown that there is no person connected with the deceased by marriage or consanguinity who is entitled to letters of administration and willing to act. In the present application learned Counsel relies merely on the statements made in the application itself. Para. 2 of that application sets out as is required by the Succession Act the allegation that the deceased left no relatives or persons connected with him by marriage or consanguinity who were entitled to letters of administration and willing to act but it is necessary just as in the case of a civil suit, that evidence should be given in support of the allegations in the application. The evidence that was given was, in our opinion, altogether insufficient. The evidence was merely to the effect that the deceased Mr. Garrity had no wife or children and was not married and that the applicant had known him for 5 or 6 years. The applicant could not say if he was married before the applicant knew him, and he gave the age of the deceased as about 60. No other evidence was given in support of the applicant except the statement of a clerk in the G.I.P. Railway Office, one Salig Ram, who stated that he was not aware whether the deceased had any wife or children. The object of the applicant was to obtain letters of administration in order to get funds which were deposited in the Provident Fund of the deceased. We are of opinion that it is necessary for the applicant to produce evidence that enquiries have been made in the place where the father and mother of the deceased originally lived which would show whether the deceased had any relative still surviving. No evidence of that nature has been put on the record. The learned, District Judge was therefore correct in dismissing this application on the ground that the applicant had not proved his right to apply. We leave the matter open for the applicant to make such enquiries and place further evidence before the District Judge if the applicant obtains sufficient evidence to show his right. We accordingly dismiss this first appeal from order with costs.