The longer the delay the stronger the suspicion.

1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchi in I. A. No.44 of 1985 in O.P. No.43 of 1979 allowing the same and revoking the Letters of Administration granted in respect of the unregistered Will dated 27.4.1973 said to have been executed by one Kaliammal.

2. The averments in the petition are as follows: Respondents 2 and 3 borrowed movies from the petitioner on the foot of an equitable mortgage. Since they did not pay the money, the petitioner filed O.S.No.474 of 1975 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli which was later on transferred to the Sub Court, Karur and numbered as O.S. No.308 of 1975. In spite of the contest made by the respondents 2 and 3, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 27.1.1977. Since the respondents have not paid any money even after the passing of the preliminary decree, the petitioner filed an application in LA. No.555 of 1977 and a final decree has been passed on 27.6.1979 for the sale of the hypotheca. The respondents have borrowed the money representing that the property which originally belonged to their mother Kaliammal has been bequeathed in their favour by means of a registered will on 24.4.1973. The petitioner became the mortgagee in respect of the said property and is a person interested in the property. The title deeds in respect of the property and the registered will have been handed over to the petitioner by the respondents 2 and 3 at the time of the mortgage. It appears that the respondents 2 and 3 in collusion with the first respondent have filed an application in O.P. No.43 of 1979 for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the will of Kaliammal alleged to have been executed by her on 27.4.1973. The documents produced in court purporting to be a will is a rank forgery. Kaliammal did not and could not have executed the same. She died on 28.4.1973. The first respondent seems to have got the Letters of Administration to the said will. The first respondent is aware of the fraudulent nature of the document and scheme of the respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner who is entitled to object and who is a person interested in the property has not been cited as a party to the proceedings. No application has been made. The petitioner has been kept in dark. The first respondent along with her daughter filed a suit in O.S. No.7 of 1982 on the file of Sub Court, Karur for declaration that they are entitled to the suit property exclusively. A reference has been made about the O.P., filed by the first respondent for getting Letters of Administration. The petitioner is contesting the said suit disputing the validity and genuineness of the will. Since the Letters of Administration have been granted by this Court in favour of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this application for revoking the same. The petitioner came to know the grant of Letters of Administration only recently. Hence the petition.

3. The first respondent in her counter contends as follows: The respondents 2 and 3 have no right in the petition-mentioned property and they cannot deal with the same. The first respondent has absolute right in the property by virtue of the will dated 27.4.1973 executed in her favour by Kaliammal. The allegation that the O.P. has been filed in collusion and conspiracy between her and the respondents 2 and 3 is false. The will in favour of the first respondent has been executed by Kaliammal while she was in ace (P) Ltd., Karur (Govardhan, J.) 75 sound and disposing state of mind. The petitioner need not be cited as a party to the proceedings since the petitioner cannot claim any right in the property and could not object the grant of Letters of Administration. In O.S. No.308 of 1975, the petitioner filed E.P. No.287 of 1980 and in that petition, the second respondent has filed a counter stating the O.P.No., and the date of probate granted by the court in respect of the Will dated 27.4.1973. The pet