IMPORTANT POINT
The applicant must demonstrate a 'just cause' for revocation of Probate and establish a caveatable interest as per Section 263 of the Succession Act, 1925.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The applicant Smt. Jharna Das has filed the instant application for revocation of a grant of Probate dated 22nd April, 2021 in PLA No. 358 of 2019 to the estate of the deceased Ashesh Kumar Dhar, who died on 13th April, 2018.

2. After the death of Ashesh Kumar Dhar, the respondent had filed an application before this Court being PLA No. 358 of 2019 for grant of Probate to the estate of the deceased Ashesh Kumar Dhar in terms of his last Will and Testament dated 27th March, 2015. This Court by an order dated 12th March, 2021 has allowed the prayer for grant of Probate and on 22nd April, 2021 has issued Probate to the respondent.

3. Now, the applicant has filed the present application for revocation of the Probate. The applicant says that the deceased Ashesh Kumar Dhar during his life time had executed a Will on 10th December, 2015 which is a registered Will and in the said Will, the testator has appointed the applicant as executrix and his wife as beneficiary of his last Will and Testament. The applicant says that the respondent being the brother of the deceased with the oblique motive and in the absence of the wife of the deceased by undue influence and fraudulently obtained an unregistered Will in his favour along with his son though the Will of the applicant is the last Will and Testament.

4. The applicant says that when the deceased came to know about the alleged act of the respondent and his nephew, namely, Ankit Dhar, immediately, the deceased has executed a Will by appointing the applicant as executrix and his wife as beneficiary of his last Will and the said Will got registered. The wife of the deceased came to know about the application filed by the respondent being PLA No. 358 of 2019, sometimes in the last week of December, 2020 from the Special Citation issued in the said proceeding but due to her old age and pandemic Covid-19, the wife of the deceased could not take steps by filing caveat. The wife of the deceased came to know on 20th April, 2022 that this Court has passed an order for Grant of Probate in favour of the respondent on 12th March, 2021.

5. The applicant submits that the Will executed by the testator in favour of the applicant in which the wife of the testator is beneficiary of the last Will and Testament and the applicant being the executrix has already filed an application for Grant of Probate of the said Will and prayed for revocation of the probate granted by this Court in favour of the respondent. He submits that the case of the applicant is covered under Clause (d) and Clause (vi) of the illustration of Section 263 of the Succession Act, 1925.

6. The applicant has relied upon the judgment reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 2618 (In the Goods of: Sisir Kumar Mitra) and submitted that discovery of the later Will after grant is obtained is good ground for revocation of the probate.

7. He has relied upon the judgment reported in 2011 (5) CTC 117 (E. Sankaran –vs- Krishnaveni and Another) and submitted that the petitioner is having substantial interest in the estate is losing her right to prove the alleged Will relied by the respondent is not genuine and is a fictitious one.

8. The applicant relied upon the judgment reported in (1990) 3 SCC 333 (Elizabeth Anthony –vs-Michel Charles John Chown Lengera) and submitted that slight and even a bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to enter caveat in a probate proceeding.

9. The respondent says that the application filed by the applicant is not maintainable as the applicant does not have any right and interest in the estate of the deceased. He submits that the applicant has not demonstrated any of the grounds for revoking the probate as available under Section 263 of the Succession Act, 1925. He submits that the applicant failed to make out any case of “just cause”.

10. The respondent says that the testator, Ashesh Kumar Dhar during his life time was a Hindu and was guided and governed under the Dayabhaga