Applicant has no locus standi to file petition for revocation of Grant of Probate.

P. Sathasivam, J.

The above original side appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 19.11.1999 made in Application No.3066 of 1999 in O.P.No.623 of 1997, in and by which, the learned Judge dismissed the said application filed for revocation of the probate granted in favour of the respondent herein in O.P.No.623 of 1997 dated 02.09.1997.

2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.

3. The brief facts which are required for the disposal of the appeal are stated hereunder:

The applicant, who is a third party to the proceedings in O.P.No.623 of 1997 has filed Application No.3066 of 1999 under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Order XXV Rule 62 of the Original Side Rules. The respondent herein filed the said O.P.No.623 of 1997, for probate of the Will said to have been executed by late Dr.O.Francis on 26.06.1997. The testator of the Will died on 01.07.1997. During the lifetime of Dr.O. Francis, he entered into an agreement of sale dated 30.05.1992 in respect of the property situate at No.9, Hunters Lane, Vepery, Madras 7, agreeing to convey the property in favour of the applicant for a consideration of Rs.12,25,000/- free from all encumbrances. Pursuant to the agreement, the applicant had made a payment of Rs.5 lakhs on 30.05.1992 and subsequently, a further payment of Rs.3 lakhs on 22.04.1994 and a sum of Rs.3 lakhs on 15.06.1996, leaving a balance of Rs.1,25,000/- payable at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed in her favour. It is her claim that the said Dr.O.Francis, died without fulfilling the obligations arising out of the agreement dated 30.05.1992, which has warranted the applicant to file C.S.No.1017 of 1998 on the file of this Court to enforce the contract as against the estate and the administrator. She also obtained an order of injunction against one Joseph Kumar, inter-meddler from alienating or dealing with the suit property. Subsequently, on coming to know that the respondent is projecting the Will and calling herself as a executrix of the estate of Dr. O. Francis pursuant to the orders passed in O.P.No.623 of 1997, she has filed an Application Nos.1799 and 1800 of 1999 in C.S.No.1017 of 1998 for impleadment and those applications are pending.

4. The alleged Will purported to have been executed by Late Dr. O. Francis is nothing but a document fabricated by the respondent. He never lived at No.32, Temple Road, Secretariat Colony, Kilpauk, Madras 10 and never executed the alleged Will dated 26.06.1997. The alleged Will does not refer to the agreement of sale executed by him in favour of the applicant, however, there is a valid concluded contract of sale of the property in her favour and if really Dr.O.Francis had executed the Will as projected by the respondent in sound disposing state of mind, he would have adverted to the execution of the agreement of sale in her favour and also with regard to payments, which he had received from her from time to time.

5. The alleged propounder of the Will, namely, Dr. Ammini Praveen Joshua @ Veena, who is the respondent in the application, is an utter stranger and she is not related to Dr. O. Francis. The judgment obtained by the respondent would operate as a judgment in rem and the Court ought to have been satisfied that the Will has been duly executed, attested and proved in accordance with law and dispelled the doubts, which may arise in the mind of the Court prior to the grant of probate in favour of the respondent. The applicant has a direct substantial interest in the estate of Late Dr. O. Francis and as such, she has a caveatable interest, which cannot be ignored by the respondent while obtaining the Grant. She learnt that his own brother’s son Francis Valamperampil S/o. Late Verghese, Market Ward, Alleppy, Kerala has not been cited as a party. But for the Will, his brother would be the normal heir who shall