The application for revocation of letters of administration must demonstrate substance and cause, and cannot be used as a delay tactic.

M. Chockalingam, J.

This intra-court appeal challenges an order of dismissal made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Application No.3800 of 2004 whereby the request of the first appellant husband seeking revocation of the letters of administration granted in O.P.No.312 of 2001, was denied.

2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3. Admittedly, O.P.No.312 of 2001 was filed seeking letters of administration in respect of the Will executed by one J. Rukmani. The Court of testamentary jurisdiction ordered the same on 19. 2001. The above application was filed by one Srinivasan, the husband of the second appellant, alleging that the said Rukmani obtained letters of administration dated 23. 1978 from the Court for the estate of her brother G.V. Shandilya; that the respondent in the application was the son of the applicants sister one Saroja Srinivasan; that taking advantage of the close relationship, he got the Will executed on 14. 1994 by exercising coercion and undue influence over the mother of the applicant; that the testatrix was repeatedly telling that she is going to leave the property with the applicant and that he was a legatee under the Will; but, he has not admitted the proper execution, and thus the order by the Court granting probate was to be revoked; that by way of abundant caution, the applicant has also filed a caveat petition No.37 of 2001; but, no summons were served on the applicant; that it was also not served on the Counsel; that he was entitled to be served with a notice of the proceedings independently of the caveat; that there was no reason for the said Rukmani the mother of the applicant, to disinherit the applicant in respect of the property which she was administering, and hence it was to be set aside.

4. The application was contested by the respondent stating that the said Rukmani inherited the property as per the operation of law; that she was granted letters of administration in OP No.89 of 1978; that as per the Hindu Succession Act also, the said Rukmani became the sole legal heir of the deceased brother to succeed to the estate; that it devolved upon her after his death in full, and she became the absolute owner; that there was neither coercion nor undue influence; that from the year 1985 to 1997, the respondent was away; that he was not aware of the Will; that the applicant never questioned the execution of the Will; that on one hand, he denied the execution of the Will by the testatrix and on the other, he contended that without his consent, the probate of the same should not have been granted; that admittedly, caveat was filed by the applicant on 22. 2001; that the probate application was presented on 4. 2001; that the notice of filing with copies were served on the caveator; that the notice was served through the Court on his Counsel on record; that it was proper as per the rules and practice; that no steps were taken by the applicant pursuant to the service, and hence the caveat was discharged on 37. 2001; that the probate was granted on 19. 2001; that despite the knowledge of the entire proceedings, he had not taken steps till the said application was filed in 2004; that apart from that, he has also filed O.S.No.634 of 2002 on the file of the City Civil Court in Chennai seeking permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property; that this application was hopelessly barred by limitation, and hence it was to be dismissed.

5. The learned Single Judge after hearing the submissions made by the Counsel on either side and looking into the materials available, made an order of dismissal of the application. Hence this appeal.

6. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ram Mohan would submit that it is not in controversy that in that OP, the second appellants husband Srinivasan filed a caveat; but, no notice was served upon him; and that the service of summons on the