The main legal point established in the judgment is that the requirement of caveatable interest does not deprive a person of the right to invoke Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of a probate order obtained fraudulently or through false suggestions.

V. Periya Karuppiah, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of dismissal passed by the learned single Judge in Application No.111 of 2008 in O.P.No.565 of 2001 2009, dated 10.6.2010.

2. The applicant before the learned single Judge is the appellant herein. He, as a third party, filed an Application to pass an order of revocation of the grant of probate of the Will dated 19.11.1995 executed by Late E.Andal in favour of the first respondent in the said application/petitioner in the Original Petition, ordered on 28.3.2003.

3. The learned single Judge had gone through the contentions of both parties and had dismissed the claim of the applicant to revoke the grant of probate as ordered by the Testamentary Court in O.P.No.565 of 2001 on 28.3.2003. Aggrieved by such an order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard Mr.P.B.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.S.M.Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit in his argument that the refusal to grant an order of revocation of the probate by holding that the applicant should have a caveatable interest to maintain an application for revocation of grant of probate is erroneous and the finding of the learned single Judge that the appellant has no locus standi to question the grant of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He would further submit in his argument that the appellant even though was a third party to the probate proceedings, had an interest in the property bequeathed and the grant of probate had affected his right in the property and he, as an aggrieved person, can always invoke the provisions of Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act to revoke the order of grant of probate. He would further submit that the well settled proposition of law is that a probate order which was an order in rem, could be questioned by any person, but such reasons put forth for revocation should be a just cause as detailed in the explanation of Section 263 of the Act. He would also submit that the right of the appellant in the immovable property is disturbed by virtue of the order of grant of probate and the said order being a right in rem, could be questioned by the appellant, since he was prejudiced by the grant of such probate. He would also submit that the first respondent had played fraud upon the Court by suppressing the true facts and also put forth false information regarding the relationship of the first respondent with the testatrix and had applied for the probate and such a fraudulent act of the first respondent could be brought by the appellant for revoking the probate as detailed under Section 263 of the Act. He would further submit that the first respondent as petitioner in the Original Petition, did not bring the legal heirs of the deceased testatrix E.Andal, viz., Dharmalingam, Mohana, who are the brother and sister of deceased Andal. He would produce the voters' list of the house bearing Door No.66 of Ponniamman Street, where the testatrix E.Andal was living. He would refer to the name Dharmalingam, son of Ezhumalai, Mohana, wife of Gopal along with Andal, daughter of Ezhumalai were living in the said address and the said Dharmalingam and Mohana, who are the legal heirs of deceased testatrix E.Andal, but for the Will they were neither impleaded nor cited as necessary parties to the said O.P. He would also submit in his argument that the learned single Judge had misconstrued the position of law that caveatable interest is required for revocation of probate also apart from probate proceedings. He would further submit in his argument that caveatable interest is required only for being cited as parties to the probate proceedings but not after the grant of probate. He would also submit that after the grant of probate, the said order would bind all the persons apart from the parties to the probate proceedi