The revocation of Letters of Administration is justified if necessary parties with a legal interest in the estate are not cited in probate proceedings, as per Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.S.Sundar, J.

This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.07.2024 in the application filed in A.No. 2535 of 2024 in O.P.No. 539 of 2021, revoking the grant of letters of administration in respect of the Will by order in O.P.No. 531 of 2021, dated 25.12.2022.

2.The appellant filed the original petition in O.P. No. 539 of 2021, seeking Letters of Administration in respect of a Will dated 09.05.2018, alleged to have been executed by one R. Nirmala, who died on 02.12.2018. It is admitted that the appellant did not implead anyone as respondents in the proceedings. In the absence of any respondents, the petitioner was directed to tender evidence. Regarding evidence, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and examined PW2 and PW3, who are the attestors of the alleged Will. The attestors deposed that they were called by the testatrix and that the alleged Will was executed by the testatrix on 09.05.2018 in their presence. Since their evidence satisfy the requirement of a valid attestation, the said original petition in O.P. No. 539 of 2021 was allowed by this Court, by order dated 25.02.2022, granting Letters of Administration as prayed for by the appellant herein.

3. The respondents, who are 25 in number claimed to be the Class II heirs of the testatrix, filed Application No. 2535 of 2024 for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted by order dated 25.02.2022 and also sought for a direction to the registry to convert the original petition in O.P. No. 539 of 2021 into a Testamentary Original Suit for due trial. The appellant filed a reply, stating that he is the only legal heir to the testatrix and that the respondents are not legal heirs or interested persons who are required to be impleaded in the petition. It is also admitted that the deceased testatrix was the wife of the late Mr. Govarthan. The appellant claimed to be the only family member and cousin of the husband of the testatrix.

4. It is pertinent to mention that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that they are all Class II legal heirs. It is further stated that the appellant played fraud and described himself as the sole Class II legal heir of the testatrix. The respondents also contended that the deceased was not the author of the alleged Will and that the same was fabricated by the appellant by forging her signature and anti-dating the document. Apart from that, the respondents raised several other grounds not only questioning the genuineness of the Will but also citing various suspicious circumstances. It is also stated that the Will relied upon by the appellant is an unregistered Will, although signed by two other witnesses.

5. In the reply affidavit filed by the appellant in Application No. 2535 of 2024, it is stated that Late Mrs. R. Nirmala, W/o. Late Govarthan, was a relative of the appellant and that she died on 02.12.2018, leaving behind no legal heirs. It was reiterated that the appellant is the only family member and cousin of Mr. Govarthan and had been taking care of Mrs. R. Nirmala. He claimed that Mrs. Nirmala died issueless and was in a sound disposing state of mind when she bequeathed the property through an unregistered Will dated 09.05.2018 in the presence of witnesses. The appellant contended that the testatrix duly signed the Will in the presence of the attestors. Therefore, the Will was proved in the manner required by law, and hence, the impugned order revoking the L