The grant of probate establishes the genuineness and enforcibility of the will, and the revocation of the will would relate back to the date of filing of the application for revocation.

( 1 ) THE appellant before us is the plaintiff. The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and second defendant is the purchaser of the second item of the plaint schedule property. There is no dispute that the plaintiff and defendants are the children of roza nazareth, who died on 24th july, 1954. There were other children also. The first defendant set up a will under which he claimed exclusive right in respect of the assets left by roza nazareth. On 6th march, 1964, the first defendant obtained a probate as per ex. D. 11. Subsequently, he sold the second item on 6th december, 1971, to the second defendant. According to the plaintiff, the probate obtained by the first defendant was without notice and was void. He approached the court for revocation of the probate and the revocation was ordered on 3rd march, 1975 as per ex. P. 7. Subsequently he obtained the shares of other children of roza nazareth, except that of the first defendant, and proceeded to file the present suit claiming five out of six shares in the two items of properties. The first defendant raised several contentions including the plea of adverse possession. However, the trial court rejected all these contentions. But while decreeing the suit, the trial court held that the title of the second defendant cannot be disturbed because he is a bona fide purchaser from the first defendant and the second defendant was entitled to act on the basis of the probate obtained by the first defendant. The trial court held that the revocation of the will would relate back to the date of filing of the application for revocation and all anterior acts cannot be set at naught by the court.

( 2 ) IT was contended before us by Mr. B. l. acharya, the learned counsel for the appellants, that when the probate is revoked, it would relate back to the date of setting up of the will by the propounder of the will and, therefore, it has to be held that there was no will at all from the very beginning; if so, the first defendant had no title to pass on the property to the second defendant; the sale deed shall have to be declared as void and the appropriate share of the plaintiff should be decreed.

( 3 ) IT is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The grant of probate establishes the genuineness and the enforcibility of the will and the person in whose favour the probate is granted is entitled to convey appropriate title arising out of the will which was probated by the court. may be, under certain circumstances, the probate could he revoked. It is also possible as happened in the present case, the propounder of the will did not take appropriate steps to notify the other heirs before obtaining the probate. But the third party who acts bona fide and deals with the person who obtained the probate and purchases the property cannot be made answerable to the fraud or the mistakes committed by the propounder of the will. Law does not expect the third party like the second defendant to examine whether the probate was properly obtained and whether all the procedural requirements were satisfied before the probate was granted by the court. Section 227 of the Indian succession Act, 1925, says that probate of a will when granted establishes the will from the death of the testator and renders valid all intermediate acts of the executor as such. Section 297 declares that when a grant of probate is revoked, all payments bona fide made to any executor or administrator under such grant before the revocation shall, notwithstanding such revocation, be a legal discharge to the person making the same. . . . . . . , etc. Section 273 provides for the conclusiveness of probate and states that probate shall have effect over all the property and estate of the deceased throughout the slate in which the same is granted and shall be conclusive as to the representative title against all debtors of the deceased, etc. The principle is brought o