The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to file caveats and contest the grant of Letters of Administration, despite having notice of the proceedings, does not constitute just cause for revocation under the Indian Succession Act.

1. The facts leading to the above applications are as follows:

“O.P.No.718/2000 was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in A.No. 4213/2001 for Letters of Administration in the matter of the last Will and Testament of A.K. Govindaraja Mudaliar and Smt. Abidagujambal, both deceased. Govindaraja Mudaliar was the grandfather of respondents 1 and 2. He purchased the property subject matter of the Will in the name of his wife, Abidagujambal in 1943. The applicants herein were respondents 1 and 2 in O.P.No.718/2000. The third respondent is a son of Govindaraja Mudaliar. The four th respondent is the mother of the petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 their sisters. Govindaraja Mudaliar and Abidagujambal executed a Will on 13.3.1967 in favour of the petitioners. Govindaraja Mudaliar died on 5.6.1969 and Abidagujambal died on 16.1.2000. Respondents 3 to 7 in the O.P. gave their consent affidavits for issuing Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioners. Respondents l and 2/applicants herein were served, but they had not filed any caveat. The Will was drafted by one Loganathan. The attesting witnesses having passed away the son of one of the attesting witnesses filed an affidavit of proof for proving the signature of his father in the Will. Paper publication was also effected. There were no objectors present. The Will was held to be proved and Letters of Administration were directed to be issued to the petitioners on 16.4.2001.

2. So far as O.P.No.719/2000 is concerned, the petitioners applied for Letters of Administration in the matter of the last Will and Testament of Govindaraja Mudaliar. The petitioners are respectively the son G. Bather and daughter-in-law B. Rajeswari of the testator Govindairaja Mudaliar. The applicants herein were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2. The other respondents were the first petitioner’s brother’s wife and children. Respondents 3 to 8 gave consent affidavits. The applicants were not represented though they had been served. The first petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the original Will. The son of one of the attesting witnesses had given an affidavit stating that he was identifying the signature of his father in the Will. The son of the scribe had also given his affidavit identifying the signature and handwriting of his father in the Will. Both the attesting witnesses and the scribe were no more at the time when the Will was sought to be proved. Publication was also effected as required. The learned Judge accepted the evidence of the first petitioner as well as the affidavits filed on his side and held that the Will had been duly proved and directed issuance of Letters of Administration by order dated 15.4.2001.

3. The applicants had taken out the present-application stating as follows:

They were not served with the copy of the original petition when notices were served on them through Court. They served a lawyer notice dated 25.1.2001 on the Counsel for the petitioners in the two petitions informing him that they had valid and legal objections for the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioners and that they were taking suitable steps for filing caveats in the O.Ps. They had not been furnished with copies of the petition along with the above O.P. They had suppressed the same and obtained the order granting Letters of Administration in their favour. The same had been obtained in collusion with the other respondents by making false statements that Govindaraja Mudaliar and Abidagujambal executed the Wills with full knowledge of the contents and in sound state of mind and voluntarily and that the petitioners, had not cared to explain the suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of will by Govindaraja Mudaliar and Abidagujamba1. They had not explained as to why all the properties belonging to the deceased executants were not included in the Will and in those circumstances, the grant of Letters of Administration had to be revoked.

4. The allegations in the