The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the grounds for revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the powers of the executor to dispose of the property.

( 1 ) THE appellant filed Miscellaneous Case No. 78 of 1953 in the Court of the District Judge, civil Station, Bangalore, for revocation of the probate granted to the first respondent on 1-8-1953 in respect of the will and codicil executed by the petitioner's mother Mrs. Florence emellia Alphanso on the ground that the executor (Respondent No. 1) had sold the only immovable property comprising the estate fraudulently and collusively for a nominal sum of Rs. 20,400/- though in, fact the property was worth more than Rs. 30,000/ -. Respondent No. 2 is the purchaser of the property. The respondents 1 and 2 questioned the maintainability of the application alleging that the ground mentioned in the petition for the revocation of the grant did not all within the scope of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The learned District judge upheld the contention of the two respondents and dismissed the application with costs.

( 2 ) THE sole point raised by Sri Govindaraju en behalf of the appellant for our consideration is whether the ground mentioned in the petition would fall within Clause (d) of the explanation to section 263 of the Succession Act 1925 (hereinafter called the Act ). It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 has sold the immovable property bearing No. 8, Bride Street Civil Station, bangalore, as executor, to respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 20,400/- under a registered sale deed. The first two respondents have denied the allegation of fraud and collusion. For the purpose of the decision of the technical point it has been assumed by the Court below that the alienation of the property by the executor was fraudulent and collusive. So, in substance, the point for consideration would be whether the probate can be revoked on the ground that the executor has alienated the property fraudulently and collusively. Section 263 of the Act lays down that the grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. The explanation to that Section reads as follows:

"explanation:. Just cause shall be deemed to exist where (a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were detective in substance,- or (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the court something material to the case; or (c) the grant was obtained. by means of an untrue-allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or (d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or (e) the person to whom the grant was made has wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect. "

It has not been disputed that the explanation is exhaustive as to the scope of 'just cause' contemplated by Section 263 of the Act. It is sufficient to mention that this High Court, following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Annoda Prasad v. Kali Krishna, ILR 24 Cal 95, has held in K. N. Srinivasan v. C. Krishna Iyenger, AIR 1957 Mys 74, that the explanation is exhaustive. It would be evident that Clause (a) of the explanation deals with substantial procedural defects in the obtaining the grant while Clauses (b) and (c) deal with the conduct of the! party in obtaining the grant of a probate either by falsely suggesting or suppressing from the court something material to the case or by making an untrue allegation of fact which is legally essential to justify the grant of a probate. Clause (d) provides for revocation where the grant has become useless and inoperative white Clause (c) deals with the conduct of the grantee) who has failed wilfully and without reasonable cause to exhibit the intrentory and the accounts. The allegations made in the petition do not refer to the conduct of then executor in obtainin