: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 19 TH 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, 12 th 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, 2 nd Floor, Room No.10, Datta Pada Road, Borivilli (East), Mumbai-400 066.
Transcript
: 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 UgareW/o Ajith K. Ugare,Aged About 38 Years,Residing at Infant Villa,
(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
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 IndianSuccession Act, against the order dated 20.3.2010passed in Misc.Case No. 76/2004 on the file of the IAdditional District Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangalore, dismissing the case filed under Section 263of the Indian Succession Act, praying to set aside thejudgement and decree dated 16.12.1994 passed inO.S.No.1/1991 passed by this court in ProbateProceedings No.20/85.
This Appeal coming for hearing on this day, thecourt delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
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 andothers – [ 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 BalaDassai 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
