JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This is a somewhat novel application. On the 1st of June 1903, one Bhagaban Dass Ure is alleged to have made a Will. He appointed no lees than eight executors, one of whom is the present, Respondent. On the 18th of September 1903, probate was granted to the eight executors. On the 22nd of November 1905, two years afterwards, the present application is made by the Respondent. He says that the proceeding for probate was taken behind his back; he was not cited; that he did not want to have anything to do with the matter and the Will set up was a forgery. The case came before the District Judge of 24-Pergunnahs, and he said that the real issue was whether the Will was fraudulent or whether It was not. The present Respondent went into a considerable amount of evidence to show that the Will was fraudulent, and induced the Court to hold that it was fraudulent. The other seven executors have appealed; and, they say that the present Respondent could not go into that question; for, he was in this difficulty : if he had any interest, it was only on the footing of the Will being a valid Will, and of his being one of the executors of that Will; if he says that there was no Will he has no locus standi to challenge it. He is not one of the heirs, or anywise interested in the estate. He could not challenge the Will : and it is difficult to see how the judgment of the Court below can stand. But there is something in the point which he now raises that he did not apply for probate and does not wish to be in the position of an executor of a Will which, he Bays, is no Will. Apparently be did not apply for probate : and he Bays he does not wish to act as an executor. We can treat his application as one for revocation as far as he is concerned, and strike his name out of the probate; and thus free him from liability as an executor. As regards the other seven executors the probate must stand, The present Respondent has no locus standi to contend that the Will is a fraudulent Will. 2. We can treat his application as one for revocation as far as he is concerned, and strike his name out of the probate; and thus free him from liability as an executor. As regards the other seven executors the probate must stand, The present Respondent has no locus standi to contend that the Will is a fraudulent Will. 2. We, therefore, discharge the decree of the District Judge and we make an order revoking the grant so far as it relates to the name of Mukundram Chuckerbutty, the present Respondent. The Appellant must have the costs of this appeal: the hearing fee is assessed at three gold mohurs. Doss, J. I agree.