1. This application has been filed to revoke the order of probate dated 11.06.2011 granted in T.O.S.No.14 of 1998 in O.P.No.31 of 1995 on the file of this court.

2. The applicants, who are the grand children of one Tmt. Komalammal testatrix, filed the application to revoke the probate, only on the ground that the previous Will left by Tmt. Komalammal was suppressed and consent affidavit of the parties also created one. The Will did not contain specific recital regarding the earlier Will said to have been left by Tmt.Komalammal.

3. Denying the entire allegation, it is the contention of the respondent that the legal heirs of Tmt.Komalammal were added as respondents in O.P.No.31 of 1995 and notice was served on all of them. All the legal heirs who had caveatable interest had given their consent affidavits and the Will has been proved in the manner known to law. To prove the Will, the advocate who prepared the Will and the attesting witness were examined. The applicants in any event would not have any caveatable interest and it is not open for them to contend that too, sixteen years after the probate was granted, that the Will is not genuine and untrue. The application is barred by limitation and the beneficiaries under the Will are not made as parties to this application. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the probate granted by this Court is liable to be cancelled on the sole ground that the previous Will left by the Testatrix has been suppressed in the subsequent proceedings and the consent affidavits filed by the parties were also forged one. There are lot of suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. Hence, prayed for revocation of Probate.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the Probate was granted in the year 2001 and this application has been filed after a long delay and hence the application is barred by limitation. Further the applicants have no caveatable interest at the time of granting probate. Their mother had also given consent affidavit. Therefore submitted that now the applicants cannot assail grant of Probate. Further there is no material to show that there was a forgery. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application.

6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance of the following judgments:

1. 2013 (4) Mh.L.J. 464 [Nina Agarwalla vs. Ashok Gupta and others]

2. (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 300 [Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha and others]

3. (2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases 271 [Lynette Fernandes vs. Gertie Mathias]

7. The applicants are the children of one Mrs. V. Neelaveni, who is one of the daughters of Tmt.Komalammal. The 1st respondent is executor of the Will appointed by Tmt. Komalammal. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also legal heirs of Tmt. Komalammal. These facts are not in dispute. This application has been filed to revoke the probate granted by this Court on 11.06.2001 in T.O.S.No.14 of 1998. The main contention of the applicants is that the earlier Will of Tmt. Komalammal, of the year 1977 has been suppressed. That apart consent affidavit of the mother has been forged. It is to be noted that the relationship of the parties is not in dispute and the probate has been granted by this Court after hearing the parties. In fact the mother of the applicants is also made as a party and she has also given consent affidavit to probate the Will of her mother. These facts are on record.

8. The contention of the applicants is that the consent affidavit of the mother is forged or fraudulently obtained cannot be countenanced without any materials. The revocation of Probate or Letters of Administration can be ordered only when the proceedings were defect in substance or probate was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or by concealing the material facts or, when it was obtained by means of untrue allegations of a fact essential in point of law or when the gra