Petitioner held has no locus standi to file petition for revocation.

Petitioners in I.A. No.67 of 1992 in O.P. No.72 of 1991, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, are the revision petitioners. Pending revision, the first petitioner died and petitioners 7 to 9 are impleaded as his legal representatives to-day as per order in C.M.P. No.2532 of 1995.

2. The petitioners 1 to 6 herein filed O.P. No.72 of 1991 for getting Letters of Administration of the will executed by late Rev. Paul Sandegran, Dean of Kremmer Sandegran Foundation on 27. 1992. The said petition was allowed, and the petitioners 1 to 6 herein were given the letters of administration. For the purpose of proving the will, the attestors were examined, and the court was satisfied about the genuineness of the testament.

3. For the sake of conveniyance, petitioners 1 to 6 herein, are referred to as petitioners. Even before the O.P. was filed,, there was litigation between the present respondent and the petitioners regarding certain immovable properties. In the civil suit, the right claimed by the petitioners was on the basis of the will. The respondent herein against whom the suit was filed,denied the title of the testator and claimed a right against him. There was a suit as O.S. No.114 of 1987, filed by the respondent herein regarding one item of property covered by the will. That suit was dismissed, against which respondent filed an appeal, and the same is pending. At that time, the petitioners herein got the will returned from the court and moved the Sub Court for getting a probate and filed O.P. No.72 of 1991. The probate was filed in court thereafter. Long after the filing of the Letters of Administration, respondent herein filed I.A. No.41 of 1992 for revoking the grant under Sec.263 of the Indian Succession Act. The main reason stated in that application was that even though litigations were pending between parties, no citation was issued to him, and he being a necessary party to the probate proceedings, any Order passed by that court is invalid. According to the respondent, the petitioners herein have obtained Letters of Administration behind his back and suppressing material facts. The petitioners herein filed detailed counter and the main contention that was raised by them was that the respondent herein being a stranger to the will, and is not claiming any right under the testator or under the will, has no locus standi to file an application for revocation. They also filed an application in I.A. No.678 of 1992, seeking an order to hear the maintainability of the petition on the ground of locus standi of the respondent to file the petition. By the impugned order, the court below held that the respondent is competent to file the application and there are certain observations stating that notice was necessary to the respondent before the grant of probate. It held that I.A. No.41 of 1992 filed by the respondent was maintainable and he has sufficient interest to maintain the same. It is the said order of the court below that is challenged in this revision.

4. From a reading of I.A. No.4l of 1992 filed by the respondent, it is clear that he wanted revocation of the will on the ground that no notice was issued to him. It is also clear from the statements therein that he is having adverse interest against the testator and is not claiming any interest under him. Under these circumstances, the question that has to be considered is, whether he can invoke the provisions of Sec.263 of the Indian Succession Act to have the Letters of Administration revoked.

5. In Mahant Ram Das v. Prem Das, A.I.R. 1932 Pat. 95, a Division Bench of that High Court was considering the scope of Sec.69 of Probate and Administration Act, coresponding to Sec.263 of the Indian Succession Act. Their Lordships held thus:

“No application for the revocation of probate under Sec.69, Probate and Administration Act, unless the applicant can show that he has some interest in the estate of the deceased.”

6. In Mahant Ram Das v. Prem Das, A.I.R. 193