The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for notice to the deceased's next-of-kin, the duty to disclose material facts, and the need to explain delays in filing for Letters of Administration.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. Being aggrieved by allowing A.No.3268 of 2006 in O.P.No.549 of 2003 revoking the Letters of Administration granted in O.P.No.549 of 2003 [20.08.2009], Appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Case of the Appellant is that he is the adoptive son of late C.N. Rangabashyam Naidu and Perundevi Ammal @ R. Sakuntala Bai Ammal. His adoptive mother Perundevi Ammal @ Sakuntala Bai Ammal and his natural mother Adhilakshmi Ammal @ Seethammal are blood related sisters and that Perundevi Ammal @ Sakuntala Bai Ammal orally adopted the Appellant as her son when he was six months old and he was brought up and educated by his adoptive parents. His adoptive father Rangabashyam Naidu's name finds place in his school and college records and that he joined the services under the control of District Veterinary Officer at Tirunelveli as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. His adoptive mother Perundevi Ammal had purchased the property situated at No.3, Prasanna Vinayagar Koil street, Mylapore, Chennai-4 under sale deed dated 19.11.1953. Rangabashyam Naidu died on 19.11.1972 and Perundevi Ammal died on 15.11.1973 leaving behind the above said property at No.3, Prasanna Vinayagar Koil street, Mylapore, Chennai-4. According to Appellant, he approached the authority for obtaining legal heirship certificate. But the Tahsildar asked the Appellant to obtain Succession Certificate from the competent Court and hence he filed O.P.No.549 of 2003 for grant of Letters of Administration. No Respondents were shown in O.P.No.549 of 2003. By the order dated 16.12.2003, Letters of Administration was granted to the Appellant for administration of the property of late Perundevi Ammal.

3. After getting an exparte order in O.P.No.549 of 2003, Appellant has filed O.S.No.4995 of 2005 on the file of XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai for delivery of possession of the said property in No.3, Prasanna Vinayagar Koil street, Mylapore, Chennai-4. On receiving notice in the said O.S.No.4995 of 2005, Respondents have filed A.No.3268 of 2006 for revoking the Letters of Administration.

4. Case of Respondents 1 to 3 is that 1st Respondent is the grand daughter of Lakshmidevi Ammal, one of the sister of Perundevi Ammal. According to Respondents 1 to 3, Perundevi Ammal settled her property in No.3, Prasanna Vinayagar Koil street, Mylapore, Chennai-4 in favour of Dhanapal who is the husband of 1st Respondent under settlement deed dated 23.08.1973. Case of Respondents is that Dhanapal is the adopted son of Perundevi Ammal and after the settlement, Dhanapal was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner till his death on 08.11.1989. After the death of Dhanapal, 1st Respondent and their daughters - Respondents 2 and 3 succeeded to the property as legal heirs of Dhanapal and that they were in an uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property. Subsequently, Respondents 1 to 3 sold the property to Respondents 4 and 5 for valid consideration under sale deed dated 28.6.1993 and Respondents 4 and 5 are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property. Respondents 1 to 5 prayed for revocation of Letters of Administration granted in O.P.No.549 of 2003 on the ground that Letters of Administration was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud and without impleading the Respondents 1 to 3 as Respondents and therefore, the Letters of Administration is liable to be revoked.

5. Upon consideration of rival contentions and materials, learned Judge held that Original Side Rules require notice to be given to the kith and kin of the deceased and that grant of probate binds all parties and the aggrieved person has right to question the probate. Observing that in view of caveatable interest expressed by the Respondents 1 to 5, learned Judge revoked the Letters of Administration and directed the O.P.No.549 of 2003 to be converted into TOS.

6. Challenging the impugned order, Ms. Aruna Devi, learned counsel appearing for Appellant has contende