JUDGMENT : K. B. Panda, J. - This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge, Puri, dated 10-11-1966 by which he has refused the Appellant's application u/s 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for revocation of the grant of probate made in favour of one Smt. Chandrabali Dasi alias Chaitanya Charan Dasi on 16-5-1964, in respect of certain properties both moveable and immoveable left by the testatrix one Smt. Patta Jemma alias Madhumanjari Devi who died on 11-2-1963. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be shortly stated thus: One Laxminarayan Dev was the Zamindar of the ex-estate of Badakhemidi which was governed by the Madras Impartible Estates Act, 1904. He had a son named Krupamaya Dev and a daughter named Smt. Patta Jemma alias Madhumanjari Devi. Admittedly, Krupamaya died sometime in 1921 succeeded by his son Ramachandra. The testatrix remained unmarried. According to the family custom in the impartible ex-estate she was given two villages and monthly cash allowance for her maintenance and a residential house at Digapahandi which was the capital of tile estate. As it appears, she led a pious life and dedicated herself to the worship of the deity Sri Gopal Krishna Deb and passed most of her time at Puri. She died at a ripe old age of about (sic). Admittedly on 5-1-1962 and 18-1-1963 she executed two registered wills at Puri Sub-Registrar's office. Under the first will she bequeathed all her immoveable properties in favour of Smt. Chandrabali Dasi and by the second will authorised her to receive Rs. 8,534.14 paise which was the compensation payable to the testatrix under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. After her death the beneficiary started a probate proceeding in respect of the two wills and got a probate in her favour. In that probate proceeding nobody was cited as opposite party and therefore, as it appears, a general citation was issued. 3. After her death the beneficiary started a probate proceeding in respect of the two wills and got a probate in her favour. In that probate proceeding nobody was cited as opposite party and therefore, as it appears, a general citation was issued. 3. The present petition was filed on 6-10-1964 praying for revocation of the probate granted to the legatee Smt. Chandrabali Dasi on various grounds, namely that the testatrix was only a limited owner in respect of the properties granted to her by way of maintenance and as such had no right to bequeath the same; that the properties belonged to the impartible estate and therefore the Petitioner-Appellant was virtually the owner and not the testatrix, that though the testatrix remained mostly at Puri she was coming to her relations at Badakhemidi at intervals; that she was not in a fit state of health about two years before her death; that taking advantage of the same very likely fraud was practised and the alleged wills were obtained from her, and lastly that no special citation having been issued to the Petitioner as provided u/s 263(ii) of the Act, the grant of probate is invalid and as such should be revoked. The legatee who is now dead had contended inter alia that the testatrix had renounced the worldly life and had accepted the life of a nun and therefore had severed all connections with her natural family; that she had adopted the legatee as her holy daughter while she was a girl of about two and that as they belong to the same cult and were disciples of the same Guru, as Guru Bhai she was entitled to the Properties of deceased Madhumanjari Dasi which have been bequeathed to her under the two wills in question. 4. The learned lower Court framed six issues and held that the properties given to late Patta Jemma alias Madhumanjari Dasi were by way of maintenance and as such she was a limited owner; that after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 her limited right matured into an absolute right and that after the vesting of the estate in the year 1953 the provisions of the Madras Impartible Estates Act were no more applicable and therefore, the properties in the possession of the executrix were her absolute properties. He further held that she had renounced worldly life and had adopted the life of a Sanyasin. On the main point regarding issue of citations, referring to some case laws the learned lower Court held that as the Petitioner-Appellant was challenging the title of the executrix he was not entitled to any citation inasmuch as he had no locus standi to contest the probate proceeding. So far as the genuineness of the wills is concerned, the lower Court held them to be so and therefore rejected the petition for revocation of the probate already granted. 5. Mr. Jagdev Ray appearing en behalf of the Petitioner-Appellant confined his argument to the question of absence of citation to the Appellant as provided u/s 263 read with Section 283 of the Act. Section 263 provides revocation or annulment for just cause. The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. Explanation Just cause shall be deemed to exist where: (a)x x x x (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or (c)x x x (d)x x x (e)x x x Under Illustration (ii) of explanation (b) quoted above it is given thus: (ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited. Section 283(c) which deals with powers of District Judge provides thus: (c) issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of ad ministration. 6. On behalf of the Petitioner-Appellant two witnesses were examined out of whom the Petitioner-Appellant was p.w. 1 and on behalf of the Defendant Respondent, Defendant No. 1 Chandrabali Dasi alias Chaitanya Charan Dasi examined herself as d.w. 1. In the memo of appeal as also in the petition for revocation of the probate various grounds have been taken which are not relevant for our purpose. Similarly, in answer to the allegations made in the petition, many things were alleged in the written statement filed on behalf of the Defendant-Respondent, which do not need any consideration. In the memo of appeal as also in the petition for revocation of the probate various grounds have been taken which are not relevant for our purpose. Similarly, in answer to the allegations made in the petition, many things were alleged in the written statement filed on behalf of the Defendant-Respondent, which do not need any consideration. Regard being had to the limitation of the Court in the matter of granting of probate I am constrained to observe that the matter has been approached as though it is a civil suit and the probate Court was sitting in judgment to decide the respective claims of the parties to the suit properties including the right; title and interest; their status vis-a-vis the property; effect of the Estate Abolition Act; impact of it on the impartible Estate, and the like. 7. To cut the matter short, the simple question for consideration is whether the Appellant is one in whose presence the probate proceeding should have been decided and therefore he should have been issued citations. Be it stated here that in the meanwhile the Appellant is dead and has been substituted by his legal heirs, and similarly the legatee being dead has been substituted by her legal representatives. 8. It was contended by Mr. Mohanty that the executrix having renounced the worldly life and having accepted the life of a nun, a general citation was sufficient for the purpose and no special citation should have beep issued to the Appellant. Whether the executrix had in fact renounced the world or not is a debatable question of fact into which I do not propose to enter. Within the limited jurisdiction of the probate Court the learned lower, Court should not have also embarked upon a decision of the matter. His sole consideration was to come to a finding if the wills had been duly executed by the executrix without any undue - influence, coercion or practising any fraud on her. All other misdirection were extraneous and irrelevant for the purpose and he should have done well to leave those matters to be agitated in the civil Court. In the context of the facts of this case admittedly the executrix is the original Appellant's fathers sister and in ordinary course of events is the reversioner. It was in the interest of the legatee to cite the nephew of the executrix, as an opp. party. In the context of the facts of this case admittedly the executrix is the original Appellant's fathers sister and in ordinary course of events is the reversioner. It was in the interest of the legatee to cite the nephew of the executrix, as an opp. party. Her assumption that the executrix had renounced the world has landed her in this difficulty. If citations had been issued to the Appellant and the probate case would have been decided in his presence there would have been no scope for the Appellant to come up with such a petition u/s 263(ii) of the Act. 9. Mr. Mohanty, on behalf of the Respondent, apart from relying on the decisions relied on by the learned lower Court, cited: Abhiiam Das Minor, by his Mohafiz & Executor Jairam Panda v. Gopal Dass ILR Cat 48 and Anil Behari Ghosh Vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and Others in support of his stand that since the Appellant has advanced an adverse title no special citations should have been issued to him. In that context he also contended that the Petitioner has no locus standi to file a petition u/s 263(ii) of the Act. Mr. Mohanty also referred to certain other decisions such as In In the Goods of Mrs. Lydia and Others and Mrs. Elizabeth Egbert Vs. A.J. Fanthome and Another (Mahant) Ram Das Vs. Prem Das Komalangi Ammal by her Father and Guardian, Kandasami Chettiar Vs. M.K. Sowbhagiammal and Another, and Smt. Dular Kuer Vs. Smt. Kesar Kuer and Others. It is not necessary to discuss the case laws reported in these citations inasmuch as there is no dispute over the proposition of law that anybody who has no interest in the properties bequeathed or advances an adverse claim to the properties bequeathed need not be issued citation. All the decisions run in the same line and Mr. Jagdev Ray for the Appellant has no quarrel over the principle of law decided therein. His grievance is that these citations are no authority for the proposition that admitted relations of the executrix should be ignored. For that he relies on Sri Annapurna Kumar v. Subodh Chandra Kumar AIR 1970 Cat. 433, which while following an earlier decision reported in Mt. Sheopati Kuer Vs. Ramakant Dikshit and Others. supports his stand. His grievance is that these citations are no authority for the proposition that admitted relations of the executrix should be ignored. For that he relies on Sri Annapurna Kumar v. Subodh Chandra Kumar AIR 1970 Cat. 433, which while following an earlier decision reported in Mt. Sheopati Kuer Vs. Ramakant Dikshit and Others. supports his stand. The Calcutta case verbatim quotes the Patna decision which is to the following effect: Any interest, however slight and even the bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a party to oppose a testamentary paper. Hence, a daughter of the testator, who was the person entitled to succeed under Hindu law on the death of the testator is entitled to citation and she is a person "who ought, to have been cited" as contemplated by Illustration (ii) of Section 263. As per Manoharlall Acting C.J. in the same citation his Lordship has observed: Under Section 283 the District Judge must, if he comes to know of existence of persons who claim to have any interest in the estate of the deceased, issue citations upon all those persons. He has no discretion in the matter. As per Justice Das: Illustration (ii) of Section 263 refers not only to cases where it is imperative on, the Court to issue a special citation, but it refers to all cases where the grant is made without citing the parties who ought in the opinion of the Court, to have been cited. In the same judgment there is an obiter to the effect that: Where the Court finds that there is a just cause for revocation, the mere fact that the propounder of the will, would experience great difficulty in proving the will due to the lapse of many years (48 years in this case and in the case at hand both the legatee is now dead) will not stand in the way of revoking the will. This is what has been exactly followed by the Calcutta High Court in the case referred to above. Anil Behari Ghosh Vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and Others referred to by Mr. Mohanty does not lay down a contrary proposition. This is what has been exactly followed by the Calcutta High Court in the case referred to above. Anil Behari Ghosh Vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and Others referred to by Mr. Mohanty does not lay down a contrary proposition. Rather it supports the view I have taken when it says: The omission to issue citations to persons who should have been apprised of the probate proceedings many well be in a normal case a ground by itself for revocation of the grant. But, this is not an absolute right irrespective of other considerations arising from the proved facts of a case. The law has vested a judicial discretion in the Court to revoke a grant where the Court may have prima facie reasons to believe that it, was necessary to have the will proved afresh in the presence of interested parties. x x x 10. From the above discussions it would follow that in the instant case in the absence of issue of citations to the Plaintiff-Appellant the grant of probate suffers from incurable infirmity and as such should be revoked. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The decision of the learned lower Court refusing the revocation of the will is set aside, but in the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs. The effect of this decision is that the probate case will start afresh from the stage of issuance of citations to the present legal representatives of the original Appellant who are now on record. Final Result : Allowed