Karnataka High Court
Mrs Joyce Enet Ugare vs James J P Roche on 19 June, 2012
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA
MFA.No.3618 OF 2010 (ISA)
BETWEEN:
Mrs. Joyce Enet Ugare
W/o Ajith K. Ugare,
Aged About 38 Years,
Residing at Infant Villa,
No.32/3, 12th Main,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore-560 040. ... Appellant
(By Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa for
M/s. A.V.G.Associates, Advocates)
AND:
1. James I. P. Roche,
S/o Late Antony Francis Roche,
Aged about 73 years,
Residing At No. B-4, Shanthi Neer,
Kanthi Nagar (J.B Nagar),
Andheri East, Mumbai.
2. Rudolf Roche,
S/o Late Antony Francis Roche,
Aged about 68 years,
Residing at M&M Co-Operative Society,
2nd Floor, Room No.10,
Datta Pada Road, Borivilli (East),
Mumbai-400 066.
:2:
3. John B.J. Roche,
S/o Antony Francis Roche,
Aged about 66 years,
Residing at Little Star,
Airport Road,
Mangalore-575 001.
4. Mrs. Flossy Gonsalves,
W/o Late Paul Gonsalves,
Aged About 75 Years,
Residing at Garodi Compound,
Bolar, Mangalore.
Presently Residing at C/o Noel
Gonsalves Bachowale Building,
Room No.35, 2nd Floor,
Dokar Street, Mazagaon,
Mumbai-400 010.
5. Mrs. Shalet Sequira,
W/o Herald Sequira,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at 201,
Manjuanth Apartment,
Alake,
Mangalore-575 001.
6. Mr. Ivan Lobo,
S/o Pascal Lobo,
Aged about 43 years,
Residing at Door No.32/3,
12th Main, Vijayanagara,
Bangalore-560 040.
Mrs. Irene D'Silva,
Since Dead by her LRs.
7. Donald D'Silva,
S/o Late Irene D'Silva,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at C/403,
Vithal Apartments,
:3:
New Link Road,
I.C. Extension, Kandra Pada,
Dahisar (West),
Mumbai-400 001.
8. Mrs. Diana Montheiro,
D/o Late Irene D'Silva,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at 23,
Surya Kiran Co-Operative Housing Society,
Block No.194, Sector 6,
Near Vasantha Complex Petrol Pump,
Charkop, Kandivilli West,
Mumbai-400 067.
9. Mrs. Edna D'Silva,
D/o Late Irene D'Silva,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at C/403,
Vithal Apartments, New Link Road,
I.C Extension, Kandra-Pada,
Dahisar (West),
Mumbai-400 001.
10. Mrs. Zita Mathias,
W/o Paul Mathias,
Aged about 64 years,
Residing at Urwa Store,
Ashoknagara,
Mangalore-575 001.
11. Mrs. Gloria Fernandes,
W/o Joseph Fernandes,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at Badanidiyur Post,
Kemman Village, Udupi Taluk,
Mangalore District-576 101.
12. Mrs. Violet D' Chunha,
W/o Dolphy D'Chunha,
Aged about 57 years,
:4:
Residing at Pius Villa Kuntikana,
Bejai Post,
Mangalore-575 004.
13. Mrs. Juliet Noronha,
W/o Cyprian Noronha,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at T. J. Compound,
Opposite Crystal Plywood Urwa,
Chilimbe,
Mangalore-575 006. ... Respondents
(By Sri.M. Vishwajith Rai for C/R-1 to R-3;
R-6, R-10, R-12 & R-13 are served;
Notice to R-4, R-5, R-7, R-8, R-9 & R-11 are
Dispensed with vide order dated 13.9.2010)
This MFA is filed under Section 299 of The Indian
Succession Act, against the order dated 20.3.2010
passed in Misc.Case No. 76/2004 on the file of the I
Additional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangalore, dismissing the case filed under Section 263
of the Indian Succession Act, praying to set aside the
judgement and decree dated 16.12.1994 passed in
O.S.No.1/1991 passed by this court in Probate
Proceedings No.20/85.
This Appeal coming for hearing on this day, the
court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act (for short "the Act") is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the I Additional District :5: Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in Misc. Case No.76/2004 dismissing the said petition filed by the appellant under Section 263 of the Act praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1994 passed in O.S.No.1/91 granting Probate of Will in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein and to revoke the said Probate granted by the Court.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are the sons of one Eliza Roche wife of Anthony Francis Roche. The said Eliza Roche died on 17.6.1989 leaving behind respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein as her 3 sons and 7 daughters. One Smt.Maise Lobo, the mother of the appellant and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein was also one of the daughters of Eliza Roche. After the death of Eliza Roche, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein filed petition in P & SC 1/90 under Section 276 of the Act, seeking grant of Probate of Will dated 18.10.1984 said to have been left behind by Eliza Roche. The daughters of deceased Eliza Roche were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 7 to the said petition. Smt.Maise Lobo, mother of the :6: appellant had been arrayed as respondent No.2 to the said petition. On publication of the citation, some of the respondents including the mother of the appellant contested the petition. Therefore, the said petition was registered as original suit in O.S.No.1/91. During the pendency of the suit, Smt.Maise Lobo, mother of the appellant and respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein died. Thereafter, the plaintiffs therein (respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein) filed application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC to bring the appellant as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein as legal representatives of defendant No.2 therein viz., Smt.Maise Lobo. The notice of the application sent to the proposed legal representatives were served on the proposed legal representative Nos. 2(a) and 2(b) while notice sent by registered post to the appellant herein proposed as legal representative No.2(c) was returned as 'not claimed'. Thereafter, the notice of the said application was taken out by publication in news paper. The court after holding the service of notice of the application on this appellant as sufficient, proceeded to dispose of the matter. Ultimately, after contest, the suit :7: came to be decreed by judgment and decree dated 16.12.1994 granting Probate of Will as sought in the suit in favour of plaintiffs therein. Thereafter the appellant herein filed Misc. Case No.67/2004 under Section 263 of the Act seeking to revoke the probate granted in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein in O.S.No.1/91 principally on two grounds viz., (1) the Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to grant Probate and (2) there was no proper notice of the petition on her.
The petition was opposed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. After holding enquiry, learned District Judge, by the order under appeal, dismissed the said petition rejecting both the contentions urged by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is in appeal before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 who are contesting respondents in this appeal.
:8:
4. The learned counsel for the appellant before this Court urged the very same grounds, which had been urged before the learned District Judge. According to the learned counsel, in view of the notification issued by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 23(A) of Karnataka Civil Courts Act, the jurisdiction to deal with petitions arising under the Act have been invested in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), subject to the pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore, the District Judge had no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit as such the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1/91 granting Probate was without jurisdiction; that admittedly the notice of L.R. application was not served personally on the appellant and the notice said to have been taken out by way of paper publication was in a paper which had no circulation in the city in which the appellant was residing, therefore, the appellant had no notice of the said application as such she could not contest the suit; that the appellant being a natural heir of her mother who was one of the party / defendant to the suit, upon :9: her death, has succeeded to her estate, as such she was entitled to contest the suit and since there was no proper notice to the appellant, she was deprived of the opportunity, therefore, the judgment granting Probate is opposed to the principles of natural justice and the same ought to have been revoked by the learned District Judge and an opportunity ought to have been provided to the appellant to contest the suit; that by revoking the Probate granted, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein as the Court would be required to deal with the matter afresh by affording opportunities to all the parties and it was open to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to prove the Will and get an order.
Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the order under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality as such it is liable to be set aside.
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. Mt.Ramanandi Kuer Vs. Mt.Kalawati Kuer [ AIR 1928 Privy Council 2 ] and : 10 :
2. B.R.Jayanthi and others Vs. Radamma and others - [ ILR 2008 KAR 4612 ]
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought to justify the order under appeal and contended as under:
that the learned District Judge had jurisdiction to deal with the suit filed for grant of Probate and the notification referred to by the counsel for the appellant has no application to the Probate proceedings as the said notification had been issued only in respect of the proceedings under Part-X of the Act which deals with issue of succession certificate; that the records of the trial Court indicates that notice issued to the appellant by registered post was redirected to her present address and the same was returned unserved with a postal endorsement "not claimed" in spite of delivering the information and thereafter the notice was taken out in news paper which had circulation in Bangalore City where she was residing at the relevant point of time and this indicates that she had notice of the proceedings as such, it cannot be said that she was deprived of an : 11 : opportunity; that the two other legal representatives who are the elder sister and brother of the appellant had entered their appearance in the trial Court through their counsel and had contested the suit, as such there was proper representation of the estate of Maise Lobo, therefore, even if there was no proper service on the appellant, no prejudice had been caused to the estate of the deceased as such there was no just cause for revoking the Probate granted by the Court.
In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. Anil Behari Ghosh Vs. Smt.Latika Bala Dassai and others [ AIR 1955 SC 566 ]
2. Dolai Maliko and others Vs. Krushna Chandra Patnaik and others [ AIR 1967 SC 49 ] and
3. Revanna Vs. A.H.Govindaraja [ ILR 1999 KAR 656 ]
6. I have bestowed my serious considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel on both sides.
: 12 :
7. In the light of the above, the point that arise for consider is, "Whether the court below is not justified in dismissing the petition?
8. As per sub-section (1) of Section 264 of the Act, the jurisdiction to grant or revoke the Probate or letters of administration, is vested with the District Judge of the District concerned. Section 276 of the Act provides for petition for grant of Probate. Such petition will have to be presented before the Court of the District Judge of the concerned district. Chapter IV of the Act comprising Sections 264 to 302 which deals with practice granting and revoking Probates and letter of administration does not contain a provision similar to Section 388 of the Act empowering the State Government to invest jurisdiction to deal with granting or revoking of the Probate in the inferior courts, below the court of District Judge. Section 388 of the Act provides that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette invest any court inferior to the grade of a District Judge : 13 : with power to exercise functions of a District Judge under that part. Section 388 falls in Part-X of the Act dealing with succession certificate. Therefore, the power to invest the jurisdiction in any inferior courts in grade to the court of District Judge is only in relation to the proceedings for issue of succession certificate provided under Part-X of the Act.
9. No doubt under Section 23-A of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, the High Court may by notification invest Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) or Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), within such local limits subject to pecuniary and other limitations as may be specified in the notification, with all or any of the powers of the District Judge under Indian Succession Act. Further, according to sub- section (2) of Section 23-A, any inferior court so invested with the powers under sub-section (1) shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in exercise of powers conferred by the Court on the District Judge and the provisions of the Act relating to the District Judge shall apply to those inferior courts as the : 14 : case may be as if they were District Judge. Thus Section 23-A of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act no doubt confers jurisdiction on the High Court to invest all or any of the powers of the District Judge under the Act in any Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) or Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.).
10. The High Court of Karnataka in exercise of the power under sub-Section (1) of Section 23-A has issued a notification under GOB No.460/2008. In B.R.Jayanthi and others Vs. Radamma and others - [ ILR 2008 KAR 4612 ] referred to supra and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court had an occasion to consider the said notification. The facts of the said reported decision are, the learned District Judge, before whom a petition under Section 276 of the Act had been filed, transferred the petition to the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) pursuant to the notification issued by the High Court. The contesting respondent therein filed an application seeking return of the complaint to the plaintiffs to present the same before the proper court on the ground that the court of : 15 : principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), had no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit in view of the provision contained under Section 264 of the Act. The said application came to be rejected. Against the said order a Writ Petition came to be filed before this Court contending that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the petition for grant of Probate to the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and the said court was not invested with power to deal with the said petition. During hearing, reliance was placed on the aforesaid notification issued by this Court. Though the court initially did not accept the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the Writ Petition, subsequently, the said order was recalled as could be seen from the order on being spoken to which is found at page 4621 of the report and the matter was restored. The order was recalled on the ground that in the notification issued by the High Court in notification NO.GOB 460/78 dated 12.3.1979, the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) have been invested with the power of District Judge in relation to the proceedings mentioned under Section 388 of the Act : 16 : i.e., the proceedings regarding issue of succession certificate only.
11. Thus from the above, it is clear that notification on which strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellant in this case also, relate to investing of the power on the inferior courts only in relation to the proceedings regarding issue of succession certificate as the said notification is issued under Section 388 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the District Judge who decided the suit in O.S.No.1/91 which had been filed for grant of Probate had not lost the jurisdiction to deal with it. On the other hand as per the Section 264 of the Act he had power to deal with the said suit. Therefore, the learned District Judge is justified in rejecting the contention raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Judge to grant Probate. Therefore, the said finding recorded by learned District Judge is sound and reasonable and is in accordance with law. Therefore, I find no substance in the said contentions urged by the learned counsel. : 17 :
12. With regard to the second contention viz., service of notice on the appellant, learned District Judge has held that there was proper notice of the application on the appellant and therefore there is no ground for revoking the Probate granted.
13. Section 263 of the Act deals with revocation or annulment of the Probate or letter of administration granted. According to the Section, the Probate or letter of administration granted may be revoked or annulled for just cause. The explanation to the Section explains the expression "just cause". According to this explanation, just cause shall be deemed to exist where -
(a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or
(b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or
(c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though : 18 : such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or
(d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or
(e) the person to whom the grant was made has willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect.
The Section also has provided certain illustrations, which reads as under:
(i) The Court by which the grant was
made had no jurisdiction.
(ii) The grant was made without citing
parties who ought to have been cited;
(iii) The Will of which Probate was obtained
was forged or revoked.
(iv) A obtained letters of administration to
the estate of B, as his widow, but it has
since transpired that she was never
married to him.
: 19 :
(v) A has taken administration to the
estate of B as if he had died intestate,
but a will has since been discovered.
(vi) Since Probate was granted, a latter Will
has been discovered.
(vii) Since Probate was granted, a codicil has been discovered which revokes or adds to the appointment of executors under the Will.
(viii) The person to who Probate was, or letters of administration were, granted has subsequently become of unsound mind.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, non- service of notice on the appellant is one of the just cause for revoking the Probate granted in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this case.
14. As noticed supra, the appellant was not an original party to the petition filed for grant of Probate. It was her mother being one of the daughters of the testatrix, who had been impleaded as respondent / defendant No.2. The mother of the appellant, upon issuance of citation, appeared before the Court and said : 20 : to have filed her objections contesting the claim. It is only under these circumstances the petition for grant of Probate was converted into an original suit. It is thereafter during the pendency of the suit, the mother of the appellant died leaving behind her two daughters and a son as her heirs. No doubt, upon the death of Smt.Maise Lobo, the appellant as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who are her children, have succeeded to the estate of Maise Lobo. Perusal of the records in O.S.No.1/91, clearly indicate that application to bring the legal representative of Maise Lobo was filed on 27.3.1991 and thereafter, the court directed issue of notices to the proposed legal representatives. In the application, the appellant was shown as third proposed legal representative while her elder sister and brother were shown as proposed legal representatives 1 and 2. There is no dispute that the proposed legal representatives 1 and 2 entered their appearance through their counsel. The notice sent to the appellant by registered post, as could be seen from the returned postal cover available in the records, was sent to No.38- : 21 : A, "Harsh Maduvana", behind Shastries Memorial Hospital, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40 and the same was redirected to House No.32/3, 12th Main Road, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40 and as per the postal endorsement, the registered cover was not claimed by the addressee though intimation had been delivered. Therefore, the unclaimed postal cover was returned to the sender. It is thereafter an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC came to be filed for publication of the notice in one issue of Udaya Vani, Mangalore edition. The said application came to be allowed by the Court and as directed by the court, publication was taken out in one issue of Udaya Vani on 4.9.1992. On the hearing date fixed on the basis of the paper publication, the court held service of notice on the appellant as sufficient and since there was no representation on her behalf, the court proceeded further treating the appellant as exparte.
15. Two contentions were urged with regard to the validity of the publication and the order holding the : 22 : service as sufficient. Firstly, it was contended that the publication did not address the name of the appellant correctly nor the address of the appellant was correctly mentioned in the publication. Secondly, the newspaper in which the publication was taken out had no circulation in Bangalore City at the relevant point of time. Both these contentions have been rejected by the learned District Judge.
16. Perusal of the paper publication indicates that it was addressed to defendant No.2(a) and the name of the party is described as Miss.Enect Lobo daughter of Maise Lobo. The address shown is No.38-A, "Harsh Maduvana", behind Shastries Memorial Hospital, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40. No doubt the rank of the appellant in the application was defendant No.2(c) whereas in the paper publication, it was wrongly shown as defendant No.2(a). This mistake in my opinion and as rightly observed by the learned District Judge has not caused any prejudice to the appellant for the reason that her name has been correctly spelt in the : 23 : publication. There is no dispute that the appellant is called Enect Lobo. Of course the records indicate that the name of the appellant is Joyce Enect Lobo prior to her marriage and after her marriage she appears to have added the surname of her husband also and she appears to be now called as Joyce Enect Ugar. Even according to the appellant, after few months of the death of her mother, she married Ajith K. Ugar, who hails from another community and therefore she lost all her relationship with her family members. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the family members of the appellant had no knowledge about the change in her name as Joyce Enect Ugar. The name mentioned in the paper publication as Enect Lobo daughter of Maise Lobo would clearly indicate that it relates to the appellant only and no other person. Wrong description of the rank of the party in itself would not make the notice defective.
17. With regard to the circulation of the newspaper in Bangalore, as rightly observed by learned : 24 : District Judge, the appellant has not placed any acceptable evidence to show that the said news paper had no circulation in Bangalore city.
18. Sub-rule (1A) of Order V Rule 20 of CPC introduced by way of amendment with effect from 1.2.1977 provides for service by an advertisement in a newspaper and the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain. Admittedly, the appellant was residing in Bangalore. In the absence of any evidence that newspaper Udaya Vani published from Mangalore had no circulation at all in Bangalore, it cannot be said that the appellant had no knowledge of the proceedings. The burden of proving that there was no proper notice of the proceedings lies on the person who asserts so. It is only when the initial burden cast on the person asserting such non-service is discharged, the burden shifts on to the other side to establish that there was proper service. Therefore, the learned District : 25 : Judge has rightly cast burden on the appellant to show that the newspaper had no circulation in Bangalore.
19. Even otherwise, the materials on record clearly indicate that the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings. Perusal of the cross-examination of the appellant would indicate that up to the date of death of her mother, the appellant was residing with her mother in Bangalore while the mother was contesting the petition filed for grant of Probate. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant who was residing with her mother had no knowledge about the proceedings. As noticed supra, the notice sent from the court by registered post had been re-directed to her present address, which is furnished in the Miscellaneous petition and the same had been returned unserved with a postal shara "not claimed" in spite of delivering the intimation. This shows that the appellant had the knowledge of the proceedings and she had deliberately avoided to receive the notice sent from the court. However, nearly about 10 years thereafter she has : 26 : presented the petition for revocation of the Probate on the ground that she has no notice of the proceedings. The elder sister and brother of the appellant have received the notice and have appeared through their counsel. This shows that estate of Maise Lobo had been properly represented. Therefore, even if it is assumed for the purpose of argument that the appellant had no notice of the proceedings, no prejudice is caused for the reason that estate of Maise Lobo was effectively represented by her (appellant's) elder sister and brother.
20. The Apex Court in the case of Anil Behari Ghosh Vs. Smt.Latika Bala Dassai and others referred to supra, had an occasion to consider the omission to issue citation to the persons who should have been apprised of the Probate proceedings. The Apex Court having regard to the fact that the estate of the particular person has been properly represented, has held that omission to issue citation in respect of one of the person cannot fall under defective substance provided under clause (a) of Explanation to Section 263 : 27 : of the Act, as such it cannot be a ground to revoke the Probate granted. In this decision, the Apex Court has considered the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Mt.Ramanandi Kuer Vs. Mt.Kalawati Kuer referred to supra relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant and has explained the same.
In the case of Dolai Maliko and others Vs. Krushna Chandra Patnaik and others, referred to supra, the Apex Court has held that omission to bring on record some of the heirs is not vital in the absence of any allegation regarding fraud or collusion. The relevant observations applicable to the facts of this case as found in para 4 reads as under:
"4. x x x x Even so we are of opinion that unless there is fraud or collusion or there are other circumstances which indicate that there has not been a fair or real trial or that against the absent heir there was a special case which was not and could not be tried in the proceeding, there is no reason why the heirs who have applied for being brought on record should not be held to : 28 : represent the entire estate including the interests of the heirs not brought on the record. This is not to say that where heirs of an appellant are to be brought on record all of them should not be brought on record and any of them should be deliberately left out. But if by oversight or on account of some doubt as to who are the heirs, any heir of a deceased appellant is left out that in itself would be no reason for holding that the entire estate of the deceased is not represented unless circumstances like fraud or collusion to which we have referred above exist".
In the case of Revanna Vs. A.H.Govindaraja referred to supra, a Division Bench of this Court has held that Will cannot be revoked unless a just cause is shown and merely on the ground that one of the relatives of the husband of the testatrix is not impleaded, Will cannot be revoked.
21. Having regard to the discussions made above, I am of the considered opinion that no prejudice is : 29 : caused to the appellant. The appellant had sufficient notice of and had knowledge of the Probate proceedings and in spite of the same, she had remained absent and after a long lapse of 10 years, she has made an attempt to get revocation of the said Probate. Having regard to the conduct on the part of the appellant, in my opinion, learned District Judge has rightly held that there are no grounds for revocation of the Probate granted by the Court.
22. In this view of the matter, I find no illegality or perversity in the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the application filed by the appellant for revocation of the Probate granted. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE RS/*