A person having a reversionary interest in the testator's estate has locus standi to claim citation or to oppose the grant of probate, but such interest must be based on existing facts and not mere conjectures.

A.B.N.Sinha, J.

1. This appeal under Sec.299 of the Indian succession Act, 1925 (Act 39 of 1925) is against the order dated the 27th November, 1962 of the First Additional District Judge, Gaya, rejecting the appellants application for revocation of the probate dated the 10th April, 1954 granted to respondent No. 1, who was the sole legatee under a wilt dated the 1st. December, 1949 executed by her father, Bhuin Prakash, who died about twenty days later on the 21st December, 1949. The testator died leaving two daughters, namely, Manwati Kuer and Keshar Kuer (respondent No. 1). The former died in the year 1951 leaving two sons and two daughters; the sons being Rajkishore and Awadhkishore, and the daughters being Sidheshwar Kuer and Dular Kuer (appellant). The application for probate was made on the 14th December, 1953, and citations were issued to Rajkishore for self and as guardian of his minor brother Awadhkishore. No caveat was entered, and probate was granted, as mentioned above, on the 10th April, 1954. On the 13th November, 1959, the present appellant, srimati Dular Kuer, one of the daughters of Manwati Kuer, filed her application for revocation on the grounds intsr alia that the proceedings to obtain grant were defective in substance in so far as all the persons interested had not been impleaded, and citations had not been issued to them. According to her, from the genealogy set out in Schedule II to her application, the only two persons who had been left out from being impleaded in the probate case were herself and her sister, Sidheshwar Kuer. The application for revocation was resisted by respondent No. 1, who filed a show cause petition on the 27th May, 1960 contending inter alia that appellant Dular Kuer had no locus standi to apply for revocation, because she never -had any interest in the property of the testator, whether in his life-time or after his death, and that she had not even a bare possibility of getting an interest even in future. The learned Additional District Judge has given effect to this plea of respondent No. 1 and has dismissed the application for revocation of the grant on the preliminary ground that applicant Srimati Dular Kuer had no locus standi to make the application. Hence this appeal by the applicant.

2. Illustration (ii) of Sec.263 shows that a grant made without citing parties, who ought to have been cited, is fit to be revoked. The question, however, is whether the applicant in this case can be said to have any interest--whether slight or otherwise in the testators estate at the time of the testators death; in other words, was there any possibility of her succeeding to the testators estate, assuming that there was no will and lie had died intestate. If the answer to this question is in the negative, it must be held that the applicant had no locus standi to claim citation or to oppose the grant, and, accordingly, her present application for revocation of the same would not be maintainable.

On the admitted genealogy, the testator died leaving two daughters, respondent No. 1 and the mother of the appellant, Manwati Kuer. In case of intestacy, the two daughters would have taken the estate jointly with rights of survivorship; and unless they had agreed that the right of survivorship should be existinguished as between themselves, on the death of Manwati Kuer the entire estate would have gone to respondent No. 1, Srimati Keshar Kuer; and on her death the estate would have gone to the two sons of Manwati who would have taken the estate as full owners like any other male member; and on their death the succession would have passed to their heirs and not to the heirs of the testator, their maternal grandfather. In the above scheme of things, there was no place for Manwatis daughters at all. Assuming that there was an agreement between the two daughters of the testator existinguishing the right of survivorship as between themselves even that would not improve the position of the applicant or