( 1 ) THE above petition is filed under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act) for revocation of the probate of the will dated 15. 3. 1992.

( 2 ) ONE Sri. M. A. Krishnamachari was the owner of the properties in question. Second respondent herein is the only daughter. He executed a will dated 15. 11. 1989 bequeathing all the properties in her favour, and appointed the first respondent as the executor. He died on 15. 2. 1991. Thereafter the first respondent, executor, filed a petition for grant of probate before this Court in C. P. No. 1/92. The petition was admitted, citation was ordered. There was no contest. The Court passed an order on 15. 3. 92 granting probate.

( 3 ) THE petitioner herein who is the only son of the second respondent claims, late Sri. M. A- Krishnamachari has executed a deed of settlement dated 6. 4. 1990 under which he had settled all the properties covered under the will in his favour. On the day Sri. M. A. Krishnamachari died he was not the owner of these properties. Therefore he contends that the respondents taking advantage of his absence from the country have clandestinely obtained the said probate behind his back and therefore the same is liable to be revoked as his interest is being affected by the aforesaid grant of probate.

( 4 ) AFTER service of notice, respondents have entered appearance and they have filed a detailed statement of objections traversing all the allegations in the petition and denying the execution of the alleged settlement deed by the deceased M. A. Krishnamachari in favour of the petitioner. They contend that the petitioner has no interest in the estate of the deceased M. A. Krishnamachari and the petition filed for revocation of the probate by a person who has no interest in the property is not maintainable. An application is also filed requesting the Court to dismiss the petition as not maintainable at the stage of admission itself. Therefore this petition was heard on the question of maintainability.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondents Sri. K. C. Shivasubramanian, contends that this Court has granted probate, after the respondents complied with all the requirements of law. In terms of the grant the property also has been transferred to the second respondent. In other words, the probate has been fully acted upon. The petitioner is claiming property adverse to the deceased M. A. Krishnamachari disputing his title on the day will came into effect. The settlement deed set up by him as source of his title is denied. Unless the petitioner establishes his title and interest in the property he has no locus standi to seek for revocation of the probate. It is settled law that in probate proceedings the Court cannot go into the question of titled of the property which the testator purports to have bequeathed. The second respondent it the only daughter. Even without the will she would have got the entire property and the petitioner during her life time has no semblance of any right to the property covered under the will. As such he has no right to maintain this petition.

( 6 ) PER Contra, Sri. Yaduraya Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that admittedly all these properties belongs to deceased M. A. Krishnamachari. He has executed a deed of settlement dated 6. 4. 90 setting all these properties in favour of the petitioner. Will comes into effect only on the death of the testator. If on the date of the death of the testator he had no right in the property, the legatee cannot get better title. Suppressing these facts during the absence of the petitioner from India, probate petition is filed without making the petitioner a party to the proceedings and probate is obtained. As the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property in question, the probate creates a cloud on his title to the property and therefore the petition filed for revocation of the probate is maintainable.

( 7 ) THIS petitio