Close blood relatives have a caveatable interest in probate proceedings, and the genuineness of a will can lead to the revocation of probate if questioned.

The application in A.No.2266 of 2013 has been filed to revoke the probate granted in O.P.No.892 of 2010 dated 23.3.2011 and a direction to surrender the original probate into this Court forthwith.

2. The application in A.No.2267 of 2013 has been filed to pass an order of interim stay of operation of the probate granted in O.P.No.892 of 2010 on 23.3.2011, pending disposal of the revocation application.

3. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in these applications are as follows:-

(a) One K.S.Varadarajan, the petitioner in O.P.No.892 of 2010 and first respondent in both the applications, has filed the said OP to grant probate in the matter of Last Will and Testament of the deceased S.Prema, who died on 30.9.2010. The second respondent herein is the beneficiary under the Will.

(b) In the said OP, it has been stated that the deceased S.Prema bequeathed and allotted the house property bearing Plot No.3 situated at Door No.9, Adambakkam Link Road, N.G.O. Colony, Adambakkam, Chennai-88 comprised in Survey No.116/1B within the sub registration District of Alanthur and registration district of South Madras, measuring to an extent of 2880 sq.ft. and house constructed thereon measuring to an extent of 350 sq.ft. and other personal belongings viz., gold jewels weighing 25 sovereigns, television set, two steel cupboards, all household articles and bank balance in savings bank account No.4482 and pension amount in Account No.4541 to her adopted daughter S.Kalaiselvi, the respondent in the main OP and the second respondent in the present applications, absolutely. The deceased S.Prema left behind her only daughter S.Kalaiselvi. In the said Will, the first respondent herein was appointed as the Executor of the Will. This Court by an order dated 23.3.2011, ordered the said OP by granting Probate of the Will.

(c) Now, the present applications have been filed by the sons and daughters of one Rukmani Ammal, the sister of testatrix S.Prema to revoke the probate granted by this Court in O.P.No.892 of 2010.

(d) In the affidavits filed in support of the said applications, it has been stated by the applicants that the testatrix S.Prema was the sister of the applicantsâ„¢ late mother Rukmani Ammal. The said S.Prema was a spinster. The applicants grandfather one Soma-sundaram Pillai and grandmother Maragathavalli have three daughters, who are as follows:-

(Tabular Matter Omitted......Ed.)

The applicants grandfather and grand- mother already pre-deceased the deceased S.Prema in 1931 and 1981 respectively.

(e) The second respondent viz., S.Kalaiselvi was never adopted by the deceased at any time during her life time, much less on 9.9.1969, the date of alleged deed of adoption dated 12.8.2008 and the deed of declaration which was registered on 30.10.2009. The second respondent herein was already adopted by one V.James and her adopted father died on 29.5.1998. After his death, the second respondent has made a claim, claiming all the terminal benefits and family pension of her deceased adoptive father V.James with the Chennai Corporation. All these facts are collected by the applicants from the Chennai Corporation under RTI Act on 8.7.2010. The second respondent was never adopted by the deceased at any time during her life time much less on 9.9.1969, the date of alleged deed of adoption or on 12.8.2008, the date of deed of declaration which was registered on 30.10.2009. Though the deed of declaration indicates that the second respondent was adopted by the deceased S.Prema under a written adoption deed dated 9.9.1969, she has failed to file the same in the suit filed by the applicants in O.S.No.10709 of 2009 for a declaration declaring that the second respondent herein is not the adopted daughter of deceased S.Prema. On a perusal of all signatures of the deceased S.Prema appeared at the bottom of the deed of declaration as well as in the petition, it could be found that the said signatures clearly differ with the signatures of the dece