The court emphasized the need for the applicant to establish a "just cause" to revoke the probate, highlighting that the reasons cited by the applicant should be examined bearing in mind the law relating to revocation of the grant.

JUDGMENT

Prayer:  IN A.No.5652 of 2022: This Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order XXV Rule 62 of O.S. Rules r/w Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act praying to revoke the letters of administration granted in O.P. No.177/2020 dated 07.09.2021.)

1. This application was filed by the 2nd respondent in O.P.No.177 of 2020 (the main O.P.) to revoke the letters of administration granted on 07.09.2021 with the Will dated 26.09.1966 of the late S.K.Subbiah Pillai annexed thereto.

2. The applicant states that he is the brother of the respondent herein/petitioner in the main O.P. Both the applicant and the respondent are the grandsons of the testator''s brother. Upon the death of the testator''s only daughter, the applicant asserts that he has a caveatable interest in the estate of the testator and was impleaded as the second respondent. He further contends that a caveat in the main O.P. was filed by him on 12.10.2020 and the same was communicated to the respondent herein on 13.10.2020. A supporting affidavit raising objections was also filed on 15.10.2020 under S.R.No.15484 of 2020.

3. The applicant further states that no notice was served on him in the main O.P., in spite of him being impleaded as per order dated 02.11.2020 in A.No.2166 of 2020. Therefore, the grant suffers from legal infirmity and there is “just cause” under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the Act) to revoke the grant.

4. These assertions were denied by the respondent on the ground that the applicant was fully aware of these proceedings and chose not to contest. The respondent further states that he did not receive a copy of the objection affidavit of the applicant and that the applicant did not comply with the requirements of Order 25 Rule 52 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, 1994 (the Original Side Rules). The respondent also asserts that the Will forming the subject of these testamentary proceedings was exhibited in evidence as Ex.A27 in a civil suit (O.S.No.12 of 1998) to which the applicant was a party and not objected to by him. Therefore, the respondent states that there is no merit in the application.

5. Oral arguments were advanced by Mr.V.K.Vijayaragavan, learned counsel for the applicant and V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, upon coming to know of the filing of the main O.P., the applicant lodged a caveat by serving a copy thereof on the respondent herein on 13.10.2020. He also submitted that an objection affidavit was filed by the applicant on 15.10.2020 under S.R.No.15484 of 2020. After pointing out that the applicant was impleaded as the second respondent in the main O.P., learned counsel submitted that notice in the main O.P. was not served on the applicant. He further submitted that it was erroneously recorded in the order dated 07.09.2021 that the applicant/second respondent in the main O.P. had no objection to the grant of letters of administration.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the following three other litigations between the parties: (i) O.P.No.556/2020, which was filed by the applicant and later converted into T.O.S. No.23/2021, for grant of letters of administration with the Will dated 28.12.2018 of the late Vedambal (deceased 1st respondent in the main O.P.) annexed thereto, by which one of the properties of the testator herein was bequeathed to the applicant. (ii) W.P.No.21741/2021 filed by the respondent herein for a direction under Section 68(2) of the Registration Act, 1908. In this writ petition, the Court directed the District Registrar to conduct an inquiry in Naka. No.486/A5/2022, and the Registrar left it open to the competent court to decide the matter relating to the validity and proof of the two Wills. (iii) O.S.No. 23 of 2019 filed by the respondent herein against the applicant and three others for partition of the properties described in the schedule thereto and to decla