The probate court exercises limited jurisdiction and is not concerned with the question of title. Once the next kin to the testator were made parties and publications effected in a manner known to law, they cannot question the issuance of grant of Probate by bringing an action under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.

A.No.532 of 2004 is filed seeking to revoke the letters of administration granted in O.P.No.159 of 2000, dated 7. 2001.

O.A.No.371 of 2008 is filed seeking to grant an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property mentioned in the application.

The application in A.No.532 of 2004 seeks to revoke the Letters of Administration granted in O.P.No.159 of 2000, dated 7. 2001.

2. O.P.No.159 of 2000 was filed by the respondent, seeking for grant of Letters of Administration in the matter of last Will executed by Smt.Andal Ammal. The respondent claimed that she is the beneficiary of the said Will. The said Andal Ammal died on 8. 1995 leaving behind the respondent, who is her daughter born through the first husband Late Natesa Naicker. In that OP, she had made the present applicants as respondents. Notice was ordered to the first applicant, which came back with and endorsement refused. Therefore, it was affixed. With reference to the second applicant, notice came back with an endorsement that he had gone out. Thereafter, on 13. 2001, paper publication was ordered on two newspapers, i.e. News Today and Malai Murasu. A proof was filed on 4. 2001. Thereafter, on 14. 2001,the matter was directed to be posted before the Master for recording evidence. Ultimately, the respondent gave her evidence on 16. 2001 and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked.

3. In that evidence, she has admitted that applicants 1 and 2 were born to her mother through Kuppusamy, who was her uncle. In fact, he father Natesa Naicker predeceased Andal Ammal. Thereafter, her mother was taken care of by her uncle Kuppusamy. On the basis of these averments, by an order, dated 7. 2001, this Court granted Letters of Administration. It was thereafter, the present application was taken up by the applicants.

4. It was stated by the applicants that they were not served with any notice in the OP and the letters of administration was obtained without notice to them. They came to know about the proceedings only when an Ejectment Suit was filed in Ejectment Suit No.16/2002 by the respondent. Thereafter, by a letter, dated 211. 2002, the applicants asked respondent to furnish a copy of the petition together with a copy of the alleged will. Since they did not get any reply and one of the applicant was set ex-parte, which was subsequently set aside, they came forward with the present applicastion.

5. It was admitted that their father Kuppusamy in order to encourage widow remarriage, married the said Andal Ammal. Andal Ammal and the first wife of Kuppusamy, Saradambal, were sisters. It was also stated that the respondents mother was only an house wife and never had any independent income and it was the income of their father Kuppusamy, who earned it by running a laundry business. It was also stated that the applicants and their mother filed a suit against the first wife and her children before the City Civil Court in O.S.No.5336 of 1980. It was also stated that the respondents mother Andal Ammal had no right to execute a Will over the schedule mentioned properties. They were not aware of any Will left by her mother. It was also stated that the applicants are living in the suit property in their individual capacity. The will was not properly attested and it was a forged will. The Letters of Administration was obtained under misrepresentation and fraudulent means.

6. Notice was ordered on this application. The respondent was directed to file a counter. The respondent/original petitioner has filed a counter affidavit, dated 27. 2009. In that counter affidavit, it was stated that the applicants though were served with notice in the OP, have evaded service and they are unnecessarily accusing the respondent. Even though letters of administration was granted as early as 2001, the present application came to be filed only after considerable delay. The Will was properly proved before this court. In