The Court has the discretion to revoke a probate grant for just cause, but such discretion should be exercised judicially and on well-known principles. Mere existence of a ground for revocation does not automatically require the Court to revoke the grant, especially when the will is admitted to be genuine and duly executed, and when revocation would be futile and serve no purpose.

BANERJEE, J. :- This is an appeal from an order made on 29-8-1950, by P.B. Mukharji, J. revoking the probate granted by this Court on 30-9-1921, which was extended on 16-9-33.

2. Benode Lal Ghose, a wealthy inhabitant of Baranagar in the suburbs of Calcutta, acquired by dint of his own labour properties moveable and immoveable of considerable value. He, having no son, adopted a boy of the name of Charu, and made his last will and testament, bearing date 29-7-1912. It appears that the relationship between the adopted son and the father was not good; and in 1917 he intended to change his will. He desired to place his estate to the value of Rs.75,000/- in the hands of the Administrator-General of Bengal for the purpose of a hospital to be built at Baranagar. He wrote on 29-6-1917, to the Administrator-General to send a man to assist him to make a will. There is a draft agreement of 1917 on the records, which shows that it was prepared for the purpose of enabling the Administrator-General to take possession of certain properties of Benode.

3. On 5-3-1920, Benode was murdered. Charu was tried for the murder, was convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. He served the sentence and came back in 1933.

4. Probate of the will was granted by this Court on 30-9-1921, to the three executors who applied for it, namely Sm. Latikabala Dasi, wife of Charu, Sm. Muktakesi Dasi and Sri Anil Kanto Ghosh, father of Latika. At the time of the conviction of Charu Benodes wife was living. She died before the probate was granted. The managing executor was Anil.

5. If Charu was guilty of particide, he could not take any benefit under the will or inherit his father. In that case whatever properties Benode left would devolve on his cousin Girish, who was the next reversioner.

6. Probate having been granted, the executors entered into possession of and managed the estate. It appears that no citation was issued to Girish, the probate being granted on the same date the application for probate was made.

7. Girish died in 1940, without taking any step for revocation of the probate, leaving four sons, the youngest of whom is Anil, who on 14-9-1949, made the application for revocation of the probate. In the petition the petitioner recites the facts I have already shortly stated, and adds that from the correspondence set out in the petition, it would appear that the testator revoked his will and made arrangements for handing over the estate to the Administrator-General, for a charitable purpose; but the purpose did not mature. The petitioner further adds that the testator did not make any will in place of the will that was revoked. He submits that as Benode had revoked his will without making a fresh one, he should be deemed to have died intestate, and the petitioner and his three brothers being the nearest male-relations of the testator, were entitled to the estate of the deceased. The petitioner further adds that Girish did not take any steps for the revocation of the probate as he was more or less a retired sort of man, having a religious frame of mind and not inclined to engage himself in litigation for the purpose of recovering the property of his cousin, the said Benode Lal Ghose.

8. The petitioner, therefore, proceeds on the footing that Benode had revoked his will and died intestate. In the petition, no date is given as to when the previous will according to the petitioner, was revoked, and there is an implied admission that Girish knew of the will and of the probate. It suggested that he did not take any step to revoke the probate, as being of a religous frame of mind, he had no desire to take the property of his cousin.

9. In the affidavits that were filed in opposition to the petition, it is definitely said that Girish and/or the petitioner and his brothers were well aware of all the material facts; the records that were placed before the Court in the revocation petition, were available to them from 1921: that with full knowledge, Girish an