The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to establish just cause for revocation of Letters of Administration under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, the presumption of correctness of statements in the Petition for grant, and the applicability of limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

1. A. No.6377/2007 is filed by one J. Malarvizhi and A. No.2070/2008 is filed by one G. Gnanasundari, daughter and the 2nd wife of the testator V. Devaraj respectively to revoke the Letters of Administration granted on 20.8.1998 in respect of the Will dated 16. 1987 left by V. Devarajan. The said Devarajan had two wives namely Krishnaveni Ammal, the first wife who had no issues and the 2nd wife is namely Gnanasundari, the applicant in A. No. 2070 of 2008 through whom he had three sons namely D. Raju, D. Ramu (both since deceased) and D. Shankar, the 1st Petitioner in O.P. No. 560 of 1996 and two daughters namely J. Malarvizhi daughter/3rd petitioner in the OP, the applicant in A. No.6377/2007 and K. Suguna.

2. The said Devarajan is said to have been doing number of businesses and have number of properties in Chennai and was the only earning member in the family. He executed a Will dated 16. 1987 bequeathing the various properties to the family members as mentioned in the Will. It is claimed that he had purchased various other properties even after the execution of the Will. According to the applicant-Gnanasundari, the property bequeathed in favour of K. Suguna was sold by Devarajan himself and on he being appraised that she had no other property, he is said to have executed another Will superseding the earlier Will in December 1992 making fair and equitable distribution of his properties to all the family members including his daughter K. Suguna. The applicant Gnanasundari alleged that her son D. Shankar had destroyed the said Will under the pretext of destroying unwanted documents. She has further alleged that after the demise of Devarajan, Shankar had taken Krishnaveni Ammal along with him and converted all her properties as his properties without the knowledge and consent of other family members.

3. She has stated that she was not aware of the Letters of Administration granted in O.P. No. 560/1996 as she was not a party to the said proceedings and came to know of the proceedings only recently. She has further averred that on verification of the records in O.P. No. 560 of 1996, she had found that her son Shankar had forged her signature and that of Krishnaveni Ammal and others and misled the Court and obtained the Letters of Administration.

4. The applicant in A. No. 6377 of 2007 besides reiterating the submissions made by the applicant-Gnanasundari, challenged the grant of Letters of Administration on the ground that her brother Shankar had played fraud on the Court by filing the fabricated and forged consent affidavits of her sister Suguna and her mother Gnanasundari.

5. In the counter filed by the 1st Respondent/Shankar, he denied the allegations and submitted inter alia that the petition for grant of letters of Administration was filed jointly by himself, Malarvizhi, the applicant in A.O. No.6377 of 2007 and Ramu and the applicant had acted upon and dealt with the properties bequeathed in her favour under the Will dated 16. 1987. He denied having forged the signatures of the applicant and other family members and submitted that there is no bona fide in the Application filed by her for revocation of the Letters of Administration.

6. I have carefully gone through the grounds stated by the applicants in both the Applications and the counter statements made by the Respondents and heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

7. An applicant in order to succeed in revoking the Letters of Administration granted by the Court must establish just cause within the meaning of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, as laid down in clauses (a) and (e) thereof. It is relevant to point out to the observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala Dassi, 1955 (2) SCR 270, that annulment of the grant of probate is a matter of substance and not a mere form and the Court may still refuse to grant annulment in cases where there is no likelihood of