Just cause shall be deemed to exist when the proceedings are defective.

The sister of respondents 1 to 3 herein has filed the above application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act to revoke the order dated 7.10.2004 in O.P. No. 451 of 2004 granting Letters of Administration in favour of the 1st respondent.

2. Thebrief facts as culled out from the application are as under:

The applicant herein along with the other two sisters and respondents 1 to 3 herein are the children of late RM. Ramasamy Ambalam who is the elder brother of RM. Solai Pillai. The said RM. Solai Pillai died intestate on 18.8.2003. His wife Sarojini pre-deceased him and they did not have any issues. The applicant and her two sisters and respondents 1 to 3 herein are the Class-II heirs coming under Entry IV of the ‘Hindu Succession Act and all of them are entitled to succeed to the properties left behind by the late Solai Pillai in equal share.

3. After the death of the said RM. Solai Pillai, the applicant sent a notice dated 6.9.2003 to the respondents, for which a reply dated 19.9.2003 was sent by the respondents denying the right of the applicant as a legal heir of RM. Solai Pillai. Hence she filed a suit in C.S. No. 198 of 2004 before this Court for partition and separate possession of her l/6th share in the suit property and for other reliefs. In O.A. No. 183 of 2004 in C.S. No. 198 of 2004 this Court granted an order of interim injunction.

4. It appears that the 1st respondent claiming that RM. Solai Pillai left behind a Will, dated 25.5.2003, filed a petition before this Court for grant of Letters of Administration, impleading only respondents 2 and 3 who are his brothers as parties and an order dated 7.10.2004 was granted by this Court in favour of the 1st respondent.

5. After coming to know about the order of this Court dated 7.10.2004, the applicant filed an application for getting certified copies of the petition and order in O.P. No. 451 of 2004 and obtained certified copies on 2.8.2006. Thereafter she has filed the above application for the above said relief.

6. It is the case of the applicant that the respondents who are well aware of the claim for partition of the applicant and rights of their three sisters, suppressed the fact before this Court by not adding them as parties in O.P. No. 451 of 2004 and obtained an order behind the back of the applicant. A specific mention was made by the applicant to the fact that when she sent a notice on 6.9.2003, the respondents sent a reply dated 19.9.2003 wherein there is no whisper about the Will, dated 25.5.2003, alleged to have been left behind by late RM. Solai Pillai. Even in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in O.A. No. 184 of 2004 in C.S. No. 198 of 2004, they have not mentioned about the filing of O.P. No. 451 of 2004, which was filed on 15.4.2004, whereas the above said counter affidavits were signed on 17.7.2004.

7. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit and respondents 2 and 3 filed a common counter affidavit.

8. It is stated by the respondents that the above application to revoke the grant of Letters of Administration is not maintainable as she is not party to the Will. The Will has been proved before this Court in accordance with law and therefore the same cannot be proved at her instance. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the above application.

9. The respondents have also filed an affidavit sworn by SP. Visalatchi Ammal who is one of the sisters in support of their contentions.

10. Heard Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents filed and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.

11. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that just cause has been shown by the applicant to revoke the grant of Letters of Administration as the grant was obtained by the respondents fraudulently by concealing the material fact namely, the applicant and her two sisters are also the l