A grant of Letters of Administration may be revoked if it was obtained irregularly, such as by failing to cite a person with an interest in the estate.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by one Annapurna Kumar whose application for revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration to the respondent Subodh Chandra Kumar was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly. It appears that the properties were left by one Sarat Chandra Kumar who died intestate on -14-4-36. On the 16th of February 1939 his widowed mother Rakhalmani filed an application for Letters of Administration, and objections were filed by Subodh and his brothers, who happened to be the sons of the sister of Sarat. Their case was that the grant of Letters of Administration was unnecessary. The case ended in a compromise on the 14th of September, 1940 and an order was made for grant of Letters of Administration jointly to Rakhalmani and Subodh on their furnishing security. Subodh did not furnish any security and Rakhalmani alone did so, and on the 11th of April 1944, Letters of Administration were issued to Rakhalmani. On the 25th of May, 1955, Subodh applied for revocation of the grant made to Rakhalmani on the ground that Rakhalmani had sold away a portion of the estate without the Court's permission. During the pendency of the Subodh's application for revocation, Rakhalmani died on the 15th of April 1956. On the 24th of September, 1956 Subodh applied for grant of Letters of Administration on the ground that Rakhalmani was dead, and that by mistake, Letters of Administration were not issued to him. In the meantime, on the 4th May, 1956 the present appellant Annapurna ?ent a registered letter through her Solicitor to Subodh claiming the possession of Calcutta properties left by Sarat on the ground that she was Sarat's widow and as such entitled to the same. In spite of that, Subodh did not implead her as a party in his application for the grant of Letters of Administration. On the 4th of March, 1957 the Court granted the Letters of Administration to Subodh ex parte on the ground that he was the surviving grantee. On the 2nd of April, 1957 Annapurna filed the instant application for revocation of the grant on the ground that she was the widow of Sarat and should have received special citation, but that everything was done without citing her at all. In spite of the pendency of that application for revocation, on the 5th of July, 1957, the Court granted Letters of Administration to Subodh. Annapurna moved this Court, and this Court pointed out that Subodh had made some incorrect statements in his application to the effect that by mistake of the Court, Letters of Administration were not issued to him whereas, in fact, they were not issued to him because he had not furnished security. This Court also questioned the propriety of issuing Letters of Administration so many years after the death of the deceased, and opined that the property should have been completely administered by this time. However, this Court refused to interfere inasmuch as this Court could not find that what the learned Judge did, amounted to irregularity or illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction, and thereafter the learned District Judge on the evidence came to the conclusion that Annapurna was not the legally married wife of Sarat, and in fact, was a prostitute, and as such has no locus standi to maintain her application for revocation, and dismissed that application. Hence this appeal.

( 2 ) WE are of opinion that the question whether Annapurna was the legally married wife of Sarat should not have been canvassed in such details in a Court of limited jurisdiction, namely, the Probate and Letters of Administration Court. It is well settled now that any interest, however slight, and even the bare possibility of an interest, is sufficient to entitle a party to oppose a testamentary paper. Even in a case where the person is not entitled to get a compulsory citation, but the citation is discretionary, the absence of citation to such a person, also would invalidate the grant in certain circumstances. This actually has been laid