Just cause for revocation of a grant of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act requires substantial defects in the proceedings, proof of fraud or concealment of material facts, and consideration of the conduct and knowledge of the person seeking revocation.

RAMAPRASADA RAO J. :- This is an appeal against the judgment of Mohan J. who on an application filed by the respondent in this appeal, revoked the Probate granted in favour of the appellants by Paul J. This order is dated 14-2-1974, whereunder he granted letters of administration to the will of one Alagirisami Chetti. The respondent applicant has briefly stated in the affidavit in support of the Judge' s summons for revocation as follows :-

2. She was admittedly a person to whom notice was ordered before the grant was made. But according to the respondent such a notice which was served on her on 12-1-1974, was not accompanied by the copy of the petition filed for the grant and that no publication was made about the date of hearing of the testamentary proceedings and that she sought for inspection of the records as per order of the Master of this court dated 19-3-1974 and it was only thereafter she entered caveat. But as by then the letters of administration was ordered on 14-2-1974, the respondent' s allegation is that the grant was obtained on false and fraudulent misrepresentations. She concedes that she has questioned the legality of the will in earlier proceedings, but could not prosecute the litigation for want of funds. She is also aggrieved over the form of the petition in that her name was not impleaded as one of the respondents. According to her Alagirisami Chetti, the testator, who is her husband, was under medical treatment and that the appellants manipulated to get a Will from him to her prejudice and to their advantage. She refers to the prior litigation to which she was party and to which we shall presently make a reference to and would add that when the counsel for the appellants were contacted for a copy of the original petition by the clerk of the respondent' s counsel, it was not even handed over to him. Her further allegation is that in the petition for the issue of the grant, there are two important aspects which have been suppressed, namely, about the place of death of the testator and about the incompleteness of the affidavit of assets. According to her, the will dated 24-11-1964, was revoked by a further will by the testator himself in his last will and testament dated 17-3-1966 and that, therefore, the grant of such a will which has been subsequently cancelled by the testator ought not to remain on record. Paul J. granted the letters of administration after following the usual procedure. Mohan J., however, thought that the allegations made by the respondent in the affidavit for revocation of the grant were sufficient to revoke it and directed a citation to issue to the appellants to lodge the original letters of administration in this court. The appellants in spite of their opposition to the application for the revocation for the grant could not succeed. Hence the appeal.

3. We shall now trace the earlier history of this litigation, as it would furnish a sufficient background for due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the subject-matter.

4. On 12-12-1959 and 2-5-1960 Alagiriswami Chetti executed two deeds of settlement which were questioned by the respondent. The result of it was a suit in this court in C. S. No. 46 of 1962, for maintenance of the respondent. This suit ended in a compromise whereunder she was awarded a sum of Rs. 500 as and towards her maintenance and therefore the above suit which was to set aside the settlement deeds ended. Then Alagirisami Chetti executed the will which was the subject-matter of the grant by Paul J. on 14-2-1974, lived for two years and more thereafter and died on 17-3-1966. Once again the respondent initiated proceedings questioning the settlement deeds and the Will. A pauper application No. 361 of 1967 to that effect was filed. In those proceedings filed in forma pauperis Appln. No. 509 of 1967 was taken for the appointment of a receiver. One of us dismissed the said application. The Master of this court who heard the main pauper application No. 3