A grant of Letters of Administration may be revoked for just cause, including cases where the proceedings to obtain the grant are defective in substance or where the grant was obtained fraudulently. A person who is not served with notice of the proceedings for the grant of Letters of Administration is not bound by the grant unless they have actual knowledge of the proceedings and have an opportunity to intervene.

( 1 ) THIS appeal which is directed against the decision of Sri U. Das Gupta dated 18-8-1949, arises out of certain proceedings for the revocation of the Letters of Administration which were granted to the appellants. The testator was Gopal Chandra Sardar who died on 6-3-1946. Shortly before his death, on 3-3-1946, Gopal Chandra Sardar executed a Will, the genuineness of which is in controversy between the parties. At the time of his death Gopal Chandra Sardar had a widow; surviving him, named Rashmani. Rashmani died, on the evidence, in February or March, 1948. Gopal Chandra Sardar who was also survived by his daughter Fakirmani Dasi, defendant No. 1, and four grandsons, defendants Nos. 2 to 5 of whom defendant No. 2 is major and defendants Nos. 3 to 5 are minors. On 5-5-1948 the appellants who are related to the testator Gopal Chandra Sardar as nephew and son of a nephew, made an application for Letters of Administration to the estate of Gopal Chandra Sardar with a copy of. the Will annexed. Citations were thereupon issued on defendant No. 1 and another nephew of the testator Gopal Chandra Sardar. No citations were issued on the testator's grandsons, defendants Nos. 2 to 5. On 28-8-1948, Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed were granted ex parte. On 28-8-1948, an application for revocation of the grant was made by defendants Nos. 1 to 5. The allegations inter alia were that defendant No. 1 was not served with notice of the application for the grant of Letters of Administration, that the Will in question was forged. It was also alleged that no citations were issued on defendants Nos. 2 to 5. This application for revocation was filed before the District Judge, Ali-pore, District 24-Parganas. After certain transfers to different Subordinate Judges we find that on 9-3-1949, the application for revocation of the grant was transferred to Sri U. Das Gupta, Subordinate Judge, 2nd Additional Court, Alipore. The learned Subordinate Judge took up the hearing of this case on 19-7-1949, and after the application was heard in full he reserved judgment which was delivered on 18-8-1949. The judgment is signed by Sri U. Das Gupta as Subordinate Judge and District Delegate. It is against this decision that the present appeal has been taken by the opposite parties to the application for revocation of the grant, that is, by the applicants for the grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of Gopal Chandra Sardar.

( 2 ) MR. Banerjee appearing on behalf of the appellants has first contended that the learned Judge in the Court below had no jurisdiction to hear the application for the revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration on the ground that he subscribed his name to the judgment as a District Delegate. It is contended that a District Delegate has no jurisdiction to hear a revocation case, the more so as the present case was a contentious one. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the decision in the case of 'kailash Chandra v. Nanda Kumar', 48 Cal W N 751. The decision, on the face of it, fully supports the contention of Mr. Banerjee. The decision of this Court proceeds on a consideration of Sections 264, 265 and 288 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 264 empowers the District Judge to grant and revoke the probate of a Will. Section 265 relates to the appointment of a District Delegate. The section states that the District Delegate may grant probate and Letters of Administration in non-contentious cases. Section 288 then proceeds to state that in every case where there is contention the District Delegate will return the papers to the District Judge. In 'kailash Chandra Mondal's case', Mukherjee, J. delivering the judgment of the Bench was concerned with a revocation case which was of a contentious nature. This is made clear by the learned Judge at page 754 of his judgment.

( 3 ) WE have, therefore, to consider how far the present case can be said to be concluded by the said decis