( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order of dismissal of an application for revocation of a letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed.

( 2 ) THE appellant acquired an interest in the testatrix's estate, though after her death, by reason of a transfer by the heirs at law. The questions for consideration are (1) whether he was entitled to a special citation in the proceedings for grant of letters of administration in view of Section 263, Illustration (ii) of the Succession Act, 1925; (2) if so, whether by reason of the absence of citation there was defect of substance within the meaning of Section 263, Explanation, Clause (a) of the act, which vitiated the grant and (3) whether he has a locus standi to apply for revocation.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1, Ku. Kusumbai, daughter of Deoraj hereinafter referred to as the "propnunder" on 16-10-1953 applied for letters of administration of a will alleged to have been executed by her grand-mother, Mst. Kuntidevi, on 4-6-1943, i. e. , nearly 15 years after her death. The will purports to bequeath the property to the propounder, in the first instance, charging the executer named therein to preserve the estate for her benefit during her minority, and if there be necessity to alienate the same to meet the expenses of her marriage. That was a contingent bequest. In the event of her father, Deoraj, performing her marriage, the estate shall then go to her brothers and sisters born afterwards, and in their absence to her mother for maintenance. The effect of the will was to dis-inherit the heirs at law.

( 4 ) MST. Kuntidevi -- the alleged testatrix, owned a plot of land at Stationganj, katri. She had three sons -- Deoraj, Jugraj and Jaichand, Of them, Jugraj predcceased mst. Kuntidevi while Jaichand died after her death leaving behind his widow, Mst. Vidyawati.

( 5 ) MEANWHILE, during the long period of 15 years, the estate was dealt with by deoraj and Mst. Vidyawati, the heirs at law, as on intestacy. The property was attached in their hands in execution of a money decree by one Ajudhya Prasad, in execution of his decree in Civil Suit No. 46-B of 1950 on 12-4-1951 and again on 24-2-1954. On 3-4-1954, the appellant purchased the property by a registered sale-deed executed by Deoraj and Mst. Vidyawati for Rupees 2,000/ -. From out of the consideration, they deposited Rs. 1,569. 94 P. in satisfaction of the full decretal claim of Ajudhya Prasad. After the sale, the property which, in the meanwhile, had been mutated in his name, was leased back by the appellant to Deoraj and Mst. Vidyawati. In Revenue case No. 64/55-56, the appellant applied under 0. 13 (3) of the C. P and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 for permission to determine the tenancy. Meanwhile, Deoraj and Vidyawati filed Civil Suit No. 21-A/ 56--later re-numbered as 4-A/57, for a declaration of title notwithstanding the safe. That suit was dismissed in default of their appearance on 10-4-1958. While this suit was pending, the appellant brought Civil Suit No. 27-B/57 for recovery of arrears of rent. In this suit, the propounder applied for being impleaded as a party-defendant alleging that the property had been bequeathed to her by the testatrix, and that she had been granted letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed.

( 6 ) IN the application for revocation, the appellant challenged the grant on two grounds, namely, (1) that there was substantial defect in the proceedings to obtain the grant and (2) that the alleged will was a forgery. In the alternative, the appellant also pleaded that the testatrix was a mere benamidar of Deoraj and, therefore, the will bequeathed no interest on the propounder. That was a foolish plea and has not rightly been pressed before us. The appellant has applied under order 6, Rule 17, read with Sections 141 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to delete paragraph 4 (h) of the application. We allow the application and permi