JUDGMENT 1. Kunwar Durgpal Singh, a big Zamindar having properties in the districts of Agra, Mainpuri and Kanpur, belonged to village Udesar. He resided in the city of Agra in his own bungalow known as "Udesar House". When he was fifty years of age, he married Dan Kunwar in the year 1922. She was about 18-19 years in age and came from a poor family. In 1954, Kunwar Durgpal Singh died without leaving any issue. 2. Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat was practising law at Agra. His family had friendly relations with the family of Durgpal Singh. Since the year 1933 he acted as the legal adviser to Smt. Dan Kunwar who was also known as Rani or Kunwarani Dan Kunwar. In 1952, after the abolition of Zamindari in this State, a large amount was awarded to her as compensation and rehabilitation grant in respect of Zamindari. Several persons, claiming to be reversioner's of Kunwar Durgpal Singh, filed Suit No. 21 of 1954 in the civil Court at Etah, for an injunction restraining her from dissipating the properties including compensation bonds. The suit was contested by her. Smt. Dan Kunwar started taking loan from Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat from the year 1954 and by the year 1957 he had advanced a sum of about Rs. 30,000/- to her. Smt. Dan Kunwar had a brother Saheb Singh by name. She kept Saheb Singh's son Surendra Pal Singh with her since his childhood and educated and married him. In August 1956, she executed a Will in which she bequeathed some properties at Udesar in favour of Surendra Pal Singh. She also bequeathed _ the bungalow at Udesar and Zamindarii bonds,amongst other properties, to Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat. In the Will she mentioned that she was doing so because she was indebted to him to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. 3. Smt. Dankunwar was found to have been suffering from Cancer of the left breast. On Mar. 10, 1957 she executed a second Will. She left Agra for Kanpur the same evening where she was operated upon on Mar. 15, 1957. After her discharge from the hospital on Mar. 26, 1957, she came back to Agra where her treatment continued but eventually she died there on Sept. 28, 1957. Some papers, including the two Wills and some diaries of Smt. Dan Kunwar, were handed over to Pt. 15, 1957. After her discharge from the hospital on Mar. 26, 1957, she came back to Agra where her treatment continued but eventually she died there on Sept. 28, 1957. Some papers, including the two Wills and some diaries of Smt. Dan Kunwar, were handed over to Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat by Saheb Singh's son Surendra Pal Singh, after the death of Smt. Dan Kunwar. 4. On Dec. 20,1957 Sheo Charan Saraswat filed Petition No. 14 of 1957 in this Court for grant of Letters of Administration of the estate of Smt. Dan Kunwar on the basis of the Will dated Mar. 10, 1957 claiming as a legatee under the Will and also in the alternative as a universal and residuary legatee. The petition was converted into Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1958 when written statement contesting it was filed by Surendra Pal Singh. Three other persons, Raj Narain Chand, Ram Kumar Singh and Bhupendra Singh filed caveats and, thereafter, written statements. The relief which was sought in the suit was that Letters of Administration may be granted to the petitioner with respect to the properties mentioned in the Will including the entire assets of Smt. Dan Kunwar having effect throughout India. The trial Judge (A. P. Srivastava, J.) found that the document dated Mar. 10, 1957 was duly executed by Smt. Dan Kunwar who was not a pardanashin lady in the ordinary sense of the term and understood the contents and implication of the document in question when she was executing it and had a predisposing mind at the time when she was said to have executed the document. Also, that the document was not executed under undue influence while Sheo Charan Saraswat was in a position to dominate her Will. The document was properly attested. Sheo Charan Saraswat was not dis-entitled from claiming Letters of Administration on the ground that, he was responsible for hastening the death of Smt. Dan Kunwar. The suit was, however, dismissed on the ground that, in so far as the portion relating to Sheo Charan Saraswat was concerned, the document was not testamentary and did not amount to a Will. The decision was given on Aug. 30, 1960. 5. Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat filed Special Appeal No. 442 of 1960 against the aforesaid judgment. The appellate judgment was given on Feb. The decision was given on Aug. 30, 1960. 5. Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat filed Special Appeal No. 442 of 1960 against the aforesaid judgment. The appellate judgment was given on Feb. 19, 1970 by a Division Bench consisting of Satish Chandra and R. L. Gulati, JJ. The Division Bench concluded that the document dated Mar. 10, 1957 was duly executed by Smt. Dan Kunwar and was formally attested, that Smt. Dan Kunwar had free and capable disposing mind on Mar. 10, 1957, that she was not a pardanash in lady of a normal type and that she could understand her affairs well; that Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat had hand in the preparation or the execution of the document; that there was nothing unnatural in her bequeathing the properties to Sheo Charan Saraswat and that the document was in the nature of a Will which was not intended to be a gift in praesenti in favour of Sheo Charan Saraswat in relation to the properties given to him, as held by the learned single Judge. The suit was decreed by the Bench on these findings. The matter went to the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by this Court under Art. 133(1)(a), (b) and (c) and was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1605(N) of 1970, there. It was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court on Feb. 28, 1985. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the Division Bench was upheld. The Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that the Receiver appointed to take charge of the estate of the deceased should be discharged and the trial Court should take steps to get the property handed over to the beneficiaries under the Will. Thereafter the beneficiaries, namely, Sarvasri, M. K. Saraswat, Devendra Kumar Saraswat, Gyanendra Saraswat and Dharamendra Saraswat sons of Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat, who had died during the intervening period, approached this Court through applications moved on Sept. 11, 1984 for issuance of Letters of Administration and for delivery of possession and accounts of the property from the Collectors of Mainpuri and Agra who had been appointed Receivers by this Court. These are applications bearing papers Nos. A 290, A-291 and A-292. On Oct. 11, 1984 for issuance of Letters of Administration and for delivery of possession and accounts of the property from the Collectors of Mainpuri and Agra who had been appointed Receivers by this Court. These are applications bearing papers Nos. A 290, A-291 and A-292. On Oct. 8, 1984 this Court (Om Prakash, J.) passed an order directing the Registrar of the Court to issue Letters of Administration and to hand over all properties constituting subject matter of the Will to the applicants. 6. Before the order aforesaid could be implemented, several applications came to be made in this Court by various persons with different prayers. Basically, it was prayed that after impleading the applicants as parties to the proceedings, the grant of letters of administration be revoked and the properties which the heirs of deceased Sheo Charan Saraswat were claiming, be not handed over to them. The first to come to this Court was Gulab Sahkari Samiti, Agra, through one Hira Lal Kardam, claiming to be authorised by the Secretary of the Society. This was application A-293, dated Sept. 15, 1984. Others came later. Basant Lal and Amar Nath sought their impleadment through application No. A-310 of Jan. 7; 1986. The application for revoking the grant (A-330) was made in March, 1986 by them. Virendra Pal Singh, another son of Saheb Singh and brother of Surendra Pal, who was defendant in Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1958, made an application (A-328) for revocation of the grant on Mar. 3/5, 1986. Through an application of the same date (A 327) Pancham Singh sought the revocation of the grant and so did Baldeo Singh and another by application (A-332) dated Mar. 19, 1986. Mahesh Singh, -another son of Saheb Singh, Smt. Chandrawati widow of Virendra Pal Singh and, Gopal Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Kumari Rani Kumari came to this Court through applications (A-338, A-340 and A 341) dated July, 16, 1986. 7. 19, 1986. Mahesh Singh, -another son of Saheb Singh, Smt. Chandrawati widow of Virendra Pal Singh and, Gopal Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Kumari Rani Kumari came to this Court through applications (A-338, A-340 and A 341) dated July, 16, 1986. 7. Details apart, which shall be dealt with at the appropriate stage, the respective cases of the various applicants are; (i) Gulab Sahkari Samiti The Samiti purchased a land measuring 3.14 acres from Triloki Nath and Sadashiv Goswami through a sale deed dated April 23, 1983 and is in possession thereof with effect from the date of execution of the sale deed; the Collector of Agra, who was appointed Receiver of Udesar House, was in collusion with Sheo Charan Saraswat and was threatening to disturb the possession of the Samiti. The sons of Sheo Charan Saraswat are trying to.take possession of the property which is not covered by the Will and in their application dated Sept. 11, 1984 they had described --the, property allegedly covered by the Will in a manner which had never been put forward earlier. They are trying to grab the property which did not belong to the testatrix. The grant of Letters of Administration is liable to be revoked on various grounds mentioned in its Application (A-323) filed on Feb. 11, 1986. This Court, which made the grant, is the only Court which can make an order revoking it under section 263, Succession Act. (ii) Basant Lal and Amar Nath say that Rani Dan Kunwar was not competent to make a Will in respect of the land (2 bigha 6 biswas) in Mohal 15 Biswas. They claim to be the Zamindars of the land and say that the Rani had no proprietary right in the land. At best she could make a Will in respect of Malwa of Udesar House. The heirs of Sheo Charan Saraswat may, if they like, remove the Malwa. (iii) Pancham Singh says that through an agreement of sale dated Dec. 27, 1954, 150 sq. yards of land was agreed to be sold by the Rani in his favour. The suit for specific performance (Suit No. 3 of 1985) filed on Jan. 5, 1985 is pending before the Civil Judge, Mainpuri, about it. The agreement having been made subsequent to the date of the Will, namely, Mar. 27, 1954, 150 sq. yards of land was agreed to be sold by the Rani in his favour. The suit for specific performance (Suit No. 3 of 1985) filed on Jan. 5, 1985 is pending before the Civil Judge, Mainpuri, about it. The agreement having been made subsequent to the date of the Will, namely, Mar. 10, 1957, the property covered by it was not intended to pass under the Will to the beneficiaries' by the Rani herself. (iv) Virendra Pal Singh said that by gift' deed dated Sept. 26, 1957, which was presented for registration on Sept. 28, 1957, Rani Dan Kunwar made a gift of half of the servants quarters of Udesar House, apart from Bhumidhari land, which was given to him and his brother Surendra Pal by the Rani. She also executed a sale deed dated Sept. 26, 1957, which was also presented for registration on Sept. 28, 1957, under which the other half of the servants quarters of Udesar House apart from some Bhumidhari land was transferred by her to the minor sons of her brother Saheb Singh as also to Chandrapal Singh son of Damber Singh (wife's brother of Surendra Pal) and Dhanpal Singh son of one Moti Singh. These properties, namely, servant quarters of Udesar House can, therefore, not be treated to be covered by the bequest by her on Mar. 10, 1957. (v) Baldeo Singh and Ramendra Singh claim to be heirs and legal representatives of one Late Smt. Sarla Devi who had a decree against Rani Dan Kunwar to which a reference is contained in Annexure 'B' to the petition for Letters of Administration dated Dec. 20, 1957. Their prayer is that the compensation bonds under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act having the face value of about Rs. 86,000/- be not given to heirs of Sheo Charan Saraswat in its entirety and that letters of administration be not issued in their favour in respect of the amount due under the decree of Late Smt. Sarla Devi which amount be directed to be paid to the applicants. (vi) Smt. Chandrawati, widow of Virendra Pal Singh; Mahesh Singh and Gopal Singh, sons of Saheb Singh, Ranjeet (sic) son of Dhanpal and Kumari Ram Kumari daughter of Dhanpal have based their claim on the sale 'deed dated 26th Sept. (vi) Smt. Chandrawati, widow of Virendra Pal Singh; Mahesh Singh and Gopal Singh, sons of Saheb Singh, Ranjeet (sic) son of Dhanpal and Kumari Ram Kumari daughter of Dhanpal have based their claim on the sale 'deed dated 26th Sept. 1957 which was presented for registration, like the gift deed in favour of Virendra Pal Singh dated Sept. 26, 1957, on September 28, 1957 and have also said, like Virendra Pal Singh, that on account of this deed the property covered by it could not be said to pass as a bequest under the Will dated Mar. 10, 1957. 8. The description of the property in respect whereof Letters of Administration were claimed in Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1958 is contained in the form of items described in Annexure 1' to the petition. It is printed in the paper book of Civil Appeal No. 1605(N) of 1970 before the Supreme Court. At pages 6 and 7, there is description of property Part II. Under Item No. 3 at Si. No. 1 is mentioned : Approx. Valuation "1.One old Kothi No. 150 Udesar House' situated in Civil Lines, Agra with a small garden attached to it. Assessed to Rs. 75/- as House tax per year. Rs. 15,000/- At Sl. No. 4 the entry is : "4.Compensation bonds granted to Smt. All together having value Dan Kunwar widow of Kr. of about Durgpal Singh r/o Udesar as an intermediary situated within : Rs. 86,000/-. (b) Tahsil Agra, Distt. Agra (c) Tahsil Jalesar Distt. Etah (d) Tahsil Moradabad, Distt. Moradabad 9. Under Item No. 4 at page 7 of the paper-book is mentioned Annexure 'B' which contains items which are in law allowed to be deducted. At S1. No. 1 in this Annexure is mentioned a sum of about Rs. 24,000/-claimed by one Smt. Sarla Devi as the amount of charge decree against the deceased which is under litigation (disputed claim). 10. In their application (A-290), the heirs of Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat have, after describing the course of proceedings leading up to the order of the Supreme Court dated Feb. 24,000/-claimed by one Smt. Sarla Devi as the amount of charge decree against the deceased which is under litigation (disputed claim). 10. In their application (A-290), the heirs of Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat have, after describing the course of proceedings leading up to the order of the Supreme Court dated Feb. 28, 1984, made the following prayer : "Prayer : It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Court be pleased : (a) to direct the office to issue to the applicants, the letters of administration with the Will annexed in respect of the properties mentioned in the Will of Smt. Dan Kunwar dated Mar. 10, 1957 including her entire assets having effect throughout the Union of India; (b) to pass an order directing that the Bonds mentioned in Schedule 'A' hereof be delivered to the applicants after being endorsed in their favour; (c) to pass such other or further orders or directions as may be deemed fit and proper." 11. In Schedule 'A', mentioned in prayer (b) the claim is in respect of Zamindari compensation bonds of a face value of Rs. 86,000/- and the urban area ZAC bonds of town Jasrana in the name of Rani Dan Kunwar of Udesar of the value of Rs. 1450/-. 12. The heirs of Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat have also made an application (A-291) in which the Collectors of Mainpuri, Moradabad and Etah have been impleaded as opposite parties. In it, the prayer made is to direct these opposite parties to hand over possession and profits of the properties and assets mentioned in Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C' and also to render true account of the management of the properties accounting for the said assets and properties and the rents and profits thereof. Schedule 'A' mentions the properties at Agra. 13. Schedule 'A' mentions the properties at Agra. 13. In another application (A-292) in which the Collectors of Agra and Mainpuri are relevant to be noticed at this stage, in this; Prayer - "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to give the following directions and orders to the Collector of Agra and, if necessary, also to the Collector, Mainpuri (i) that a true account of the management of the Udesar House Agra described in Schedule 'A' hereof be rendered accounting for the trees and land area of the said bungalow and also for the rents and profits thereof." Schedule 'A' in this application has well described the properties known as Udesar House' in the same terms in which it has been described in Schedule 'A' to application, A291. It is the property mentioned in this Schedule around, which the dispute has largely centered in the present proceeding. It is, therefore, useful to reproduce the Schedule in its entirety. Schedule 'A' Smt. Dan Kunwar's 'residential bungalow 150 Civil Lines, Agra, bearing new Municipal No. 2/94, popularly known as Udesar House, Agra covering an area of 6 bighas or about' 13083 sq. meters of land lying in khasra plot No. 441 of village Serjaipur, Tahsil and District Agra, containing several buildings, servant quarters, a pucca well and a big compound and garden full of trees, fruit bearing and timber, not less than 40 in number and enclosed by a regular boundary wall, .more or less 8' high having but only one gate in the east and bounded as follows : "East - Road; West - Kothi and soap factory of Resham Singh; North Kothi called Kotha fiouse; South - Road thereafter the tin-ka-girja and Sanadhya Ashram." 14. The argument which has been made by Sri S. N.,Misra, Senior counsel appearing for the various persons opposing issuance of letters of administration in favour of the heirs of Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat, has been that these heirs were trying to grab larger property far in excess of what was actually bequeathed to late Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat under the Will by Rani Dan Kunwar,,by laying claim to a larger area of property of Udesar House at Agra than what was initially mentioned in the petition for grant of letters of administration. He has also urged that the order of grant of letters of administration in favour of late Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat under the Will by Rani Dan Kunwar,,by laying claim to a larger area of property of Udesar House at Agra than what was initially mentioned in the petition for grant of letters of administration. He has also urged that the order of grant of letters of administration in favour of late Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat is liable to be revoked on the grounds mentioned in section 263, Succession Act, particularly, under Cis. (a), (b) and (d) of the Explanation thereunder. The further submission is that, in any case, the bequest stands a deemed under section 152 and cannot take effect. 15. Section 211, Succession Act, 1925 (hereafter, the Act) provides that the administrator of a deceased person is his legal representative for all purposes and all the property of the deceased person vests in him as such. The effect of the grant of letters of administration under section 220 is that the letters of administration entitle the administrator to all the rights belonging to the intestate as effectually as if the administration had been granted at the moment after his death. Section 2(a) defines "administrator" to mean a person appointed by competent authority to administer the estate of a deceased person when there is no executor. The Act contains provisions in detail in Chaps. VI and VII about the powers of an administrator and his duties. Section 263 says that the grant of letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. It may be read at this stage. "263. 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) 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 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 wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chap. to whom the grant was made has wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chap. VII of this part, or has exhibited under that chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect. Illustrations : (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. (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 later 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 whom probate was or letters of administration were granted has subsequently become of unsound mind." 16. The scope of proceedings for grant of letters of administration has been considered in various decisions. In Kashi Nath Singh v. Gulzari Kuer, AIR 1941 Patna 475 a Division Bench of the Patna High Court observed that : "In an application for probate of a Will or for the grant of letters of administration with a copy of the Will annexed the sole question that arises is whether or not the Will is a true one. It is not open to the probate Court to decide whether or not the property with which a testator has purported to deal, in fact, belonged to him." The Bench then quoted the observations made by this Court in Birj Nath De v. Chandra Mohan Banerji, 1897 ILR 19 All 458, that : "it has been contended that where an application for probate of a Will is contested and it is alleged that the property dealt with by the Will was not of the testator or was not property over which the testator had a power of testamentary disposal, it is not the duty of the Court to try an issue raising this question. All we can say is that it would be exceedingly inconvenient if Courts in this country had to try such issues.........It is much safer in the interests of the public that issues as to the title to property should be decided when the issues are raised in a regular suit and not on an application for a grant of probate." "The function of the Court of probate is to decide whether the Will propounded is the last Will of the testator and whether the right to represent the estate may be conferred upon the applicant. The Court of probate does not profess to decide the disputed title to every item of property mentioned in the Will. (See M. K. Sowbhagiammal v. Komalangi Ammal, AIR 1928 Mad 803) : "A grant of probate does no more than establish the factum of the Will and the legal character of the executor. It does not establish the executor's title to any of the property specified in the petition as belonging to the deceased testator nor that such property even exists, for. it is not the province of a Court of probate to determine the questions of title....... Whether probate of the alleged draft Will be granted or not, such right as the caveators may have to institute proceedings for the establishment of a title to the property in dispute will not be affected. (See Mrs. Elizabeth Egbert v. A. J. Fanthome, ILR (1951) 1 All 661 ). 17. The plea that the issuance of the letters of administration should depend upon determination of the title of Rani Dan Kunwar to the property which was included by her in the Will in respect whereof the letters of administration are sought is thus outside the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Court in these proceedings. More so, when the right of late Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat for the issuance of the letters of administration in his favour has been upheld even by the Supreme Court. The question, therefore, of title to the properties said to have been bequeathed by Rani Dan Kunwar through her Will dated March 10, 1957 raised in the various applications which have now been made by the persons whose names have been noticed earlier need not be gone into in these proceedings. The question, therefore, of title to the properties said to have been bequeathed by Rani Dan Kunwar through her Will dated March 10, 1957 raised in the various applications which have now been made by the persons whose names have been noticed earlier need not be gone into in these proceedings. The fact that the four sons of late Sheo Charan Saraswat who have made applications A-290, A-291 and A-292 are his heirs and legal representatives in these proceedings is not in dispute. On the basis of the ultimate order of the Supreme Court dated February 28, 1984 in Civil Appeal No. 1605(N) of 1970 these four sons could have made these applications before this Court as could have been done by Sheo Charan Saraswat himself when he was alive. 18. The prayer for revocation of the grant apart, the legal position seems to be clear that an objection to the grant of letters of administration or probate can only be raised by persons who may be described as insiders, i.e., those who do not dispute the title of the testator in the properties bequeathed but claim interest in the. property through him except where the Will is said to be a forged document. 19. In the case of Mrs. Elizabeth Egbert, (supra), Mootham, J. (as he then was) was called upon to decide a preliminary issue whether the caveator had any locus standi to contest the petition for grant of probate of the draft document which was said to have been the last Will of one Lydia Isabel Myrtle Higgins. The case of the caveator was that the property in dispute belonged to one Miss Wilson subject to a life interest in favour of Mrs. Higgins and, consequently, upon- her death the house belonged exclusively to the estate of Miss Wilson. The issue, according to Mootham, J. had to be answered against the caveator because, to quote his words, "the answer to the preliminary issue turns upon whether, in such circumstances, the caveators are persons claiming to have an interest in the estate of the late Mrs. Higgins. In my opinion, they are not, for it is, I think, well settled that a caveator cannot be said to have such an interest if he does not admit that the property in which he claims an interest forms part of the deceased's estate. Higgins. In my opinion, they are not, for it is, I think, well settled that a caveator cannot be said to have such an interest if he does not admit that the property in which he claims an interest forms part of the deceased's estate. A caveator who lays claim to a particular property and at the same time says that that property does not form part of the deceased's estate is not, and cannot be said to be, claiming an interest in that estate......." In the present case it is the contention of th9 caveators that the property in dispute never formed part of the estate of Mrs. Higgins and consequently it follows that if probate is granted of the draft of. the Will of the. lady it can have no effect over that property." 20. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court held in Ramyad Mahton v. Ram Bhaji Mahton, AIR 1932 Pat 89 that a person who raises an objection in a petition for grant of letters of administration on the ground that he was joint in property of the testator left by Will had no locus standi to oppose it. 21. The Madras High Court held in Baggiammal v. C. Rajagopala Chetty, AIR 1948 Mad 83 that a person denying the testator's title cannot on that account alone be held entitled to lodge a caveat. It proceeded, however, to hold that where such a person also pleaded that he was entitled to the whole estate as survivor of the joint undivided Hindu family and in the alternative if a partition was held to have taken place, he was entitled as a reversioner, the caveat could be made by him by reason of interest in the estates of the deceased as a reversioner. 22. The Orissa High Court also held in Shanti Devi Agarwalla v. Kusum Kumari Sarkar, AIR 1972 Orissa 178 that a purchaser from a person claiming to be the heir of a deceased testator can claim sufficient interest to enter caveat in an application for grant of probate made by another heir claiming right in the estate of the deceased testator. The purchaser is to be treated to have stepped into the shoes of the heir from whom he had purchased the property and who was entitled to enter caveat. 23. The purchaser is to be treated to have stepped into the shoes of the heir from whom he had purchased the property and who was entitled to enter caveat. 23. These decisions unmistakably establish the principle that a person who takes the plea that the testator had no title in the property bequeathed through a Will cannot be said to have the right to oppose the claim for grant of letters of administration or probate in respect of the property mentioned in that Will. He may, if he can, seek the revocation of the grant of letters of administration, after it has been made on any ground permissible under section 263 of the Act, if it is available to him but he cannot, on raising a dispute about title of the testator in the property covered by the Will, be permitted to oppose the grant. 24. The applications made by Gulab Sahakari Samiti and others, in so far as they seek to oppose issuance of letters of administration in favour of the heirs of late Sheo Charan Saraswat in pursuance of the order of this Court dated February 19, 1970, affirmed by the Supreme Court on February 28, 1984, on the basis that Rani Dan Kunwar was not the owner of the property in respect whereof the bequest had been made by her are not, maintainable in these proceedings. 25. Before coming to the question of revocation of the grant, the submission made by Sri Misra that the grant stood a deemed may be considered. Section 152 of the Act, dealing with ademption of legacies, reads : "152. Ademption explained - If anything which has been specifically bequeathed does not belong to the testator at the time of his death, or has been converted into property of a different kind, the legacy is a deemed; that is, it cannot take effect by reason of the subject matter having been withdrawn from the operation of the Will." 26. This provision occurs in Chap. XVI which deals with ademption of legacies. The 'circumstances in which ademption takes place are also mentioned in the succeeding Sections 154 to 166 occurring in this Chapter. The ademption is in respect of specific legacy. The question of ademption' is one of construction of a Will. It is not a question relating to the grant of probate or letters of administration in respect of the Will. The 'circumstances in which ademption takes place are also mentioned in the succeeding Sections 154 to 166 occurring in this Chapter. The ademption is in respect of specific legacy. The question of ademption' is one of construction of a Will. It is not a question relating to the grant of probate or letters of administration in respect of the Will. Ademption of a legacy in certain circumstances is relevant only to the question as to what actually passes to the legatee. It affords no ground for refusal of a grant of probate or letters of administration. The bequest may not take effect by reason of the subject matter having been withdrawn from the operation of the Will but ademption will hardly have a bearing on the question about the right of a person to the grant of letters of administration in his favour. Whether a particular grant has become useless and inoperative in the circumstances of a case and the situation resulting therefrom calls for revocation of the grant under section 263 is a distinct matter. 27. Now, the question of revocation of the grant. The grounds for revocation are mentioned in section 263 of the Act. That provision is exhaustive about the grounds upon which revocation of a grant can be sought. (See Annoda Prosad v. Kalikrishna, (1897) ILR 24 Cal 95; P. K. Roy v. Sephalika Dutta, AIR 1957 Cal 631 ; Southern Bank Ltd. v. Kesardeo Ganeriwala, AIR 1958 Cal 377 . 28. Who can come forward with the prayer for revocation? There was some debate between M. K. Saraswat and the other heirs of Pt. Shiv Charan Saraswat on the one hand and the counsel for the various applicants, seeking revocation, on the other. A number of decisions were cited. Some of them may be noticed. 29. In M. M. Sircar v. Kali Churn Dey, (1892) ILR 20 Cal 37, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upheld the right of a person who had entered into a contract for purchase of the property of the deceased with his heir, who had received the greater part of the consideration money to apply for revocation of the probate of a Will being set up by the heir and proved at variance with the interest of the purchaser. 30. 30. In Sarala Sundari Dassya v. Dinabandhu Roy Brajaraf Saha, AIR 1944 PC It, it was laid down that it could not be said that it is only those persons who could be cited before the grant of probate, are the persons who could. apply to revoke the probate. The locus to seek revocation is available to a person complaining that he had, in fact, been defrauded by the Will made by the testator. In the case before the Privy Council the creditor of an heir of a testator saying that he was likely to be defeated in his right against the debtor by reason of the property, which had otherwise appeared to be in possession of the heir, being withdrawn by a Will was held to have locus standi to apply for revocation of probate on the ground that the grant had been obtained fraudulently. 31. In Smt. Sima Rani Mohanti v. Puspa Rani Pal, AIR 1978 Cal 140 a Division Bench, speaking through M.M. Datta, J. observed that it was well settled that any interest however slight and even the bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to make an application for revocation. 32. In Smt. Yuvrani Tank Rajeshwari Devi v. Harilal, AIR 1978 Madh Pra 201, an application for revocation of a probate granted in respect of a Will executed by the deceased Raja Bahadur Leeladhar Singh by the widow of his predeceased son Yuvraj Jeevendra Nath Bahadur Singh was considered maintainable by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. On merits, however, the decision of the District Judge, Bilaspur, dismissing her petition under section 263 was upheld by the High Court. 33. The Court which grants the probate or issues letters of administration is the proper forum to be approached for the revocation of the grant. The proposition is not in dispute and has the support of precedents (See Narbheram Jivram Purohit v. Jevallabh Harjivan, AIR 1933 Bom 469; Thresja v. Lonan Mathew, AIR 1956 Trav Co. 186 (FB). 34. The revocation or annulment of the grant is discretionary with the Court depending upon various considerations. The proposition is not in dispute and has the support of precedents (See Narbheram Jivram Purohit v. Jevallabh Harjivan, AIR 1933 Bom 469; Thresja v. Lonan Mathew, AIR 1956 Trav Co. 186 (FB). 34. The revocation or annulment of the grant is discretionary with the Court depending upon various considerations. In Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi, AIR 1955 SC 566 , the fact that for a long period of 27 years after the grant one of the next reversioners of the estate of the deceased testator did not take any steps, in spite of the knowledge of the grant, was considered sufficient to refuse revocation of the grant. The Supreme Court felt that even though, in the normal course, mission to issue citation to a person who should have been apprised of the probate proceedings may be 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. It ruled that law had vested a judicial discretion in a 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. But in the circumstances of a case it may be felt by the Court that 'just cause' within the meaning of section 263 had not been made out. To quote the words of the Supreme Court : "The annulment is a matter of substance and not of mere form. The Court may refuse to grant annulment in cases where there is no likelihood of proof being offered that the Will admitted to probate was either not genuine or had not-been validly executed." 35. In Promode Kumar Roy, AIR 1957 Cal 631 , applying the aforesaid principle, the Calcutta High Court held that an applicant for revocation must, in order to succeed, establish just cause within the meaning of section 263 as laid down in Cis. (a) to (e) thereof, but even though 'just cause' is established, revocation may still be refused by the Court in exercise of its discretion under that section, if the facts and circumstances of the particular case warrant such refusal. This principle was accepted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajeshwari Devi, AIR 1978 Madh Pra 201. 36. (a) to (e) thereof, but even though 'just cause' is established, revocation may still be refused by the Court in exercise of its discretion under that section, if the facts and circumstances of the particular case warrant such refusal. This principle was accepted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajeshwari Devi, AIR 1978 Madh Pra 201. 36. In the light of these principles, the cases of the various applicants may now be examined in relation to their prayer for revocation of the grant of letters of administration in favour of late Pt. Shiv Charan Saraswat in regard to the Will dated March 10, 1957 made by Rani Dan Kunwar. (A) Gulab Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited, Agra, A-323 is the application made by the Samiti on Feb. 11, 1986 for revocation of the grant under section 263, Succession Act. In it, the grounds taken for "annulment and revocation" of the grant are these : "(a) The petitioner concealed real and true facts and materials from the Court. (b) The petitioners are not heirs of the testator under section 218 of the Act or a universal or residuary legatee under section 232 or a legatee under section 234, Succession Act, the petitioners have no locus standi for the grant. (c) The proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance inasmuch as there was no mention of kudesar house nor the details of the alleged properties. (d) The grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion of the properties and concealing material facts from the Court. (e) The petitioners have obtained wilfully the grant by omitting to exhibit a correct inventory and the inventory is untrue in material particulars." 37. Ground (b) was neither urged nor pressed at the hearing. In fact, it has been asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the Application (A-293) made on behalf of the Samiti (in Paras 2 and 4) that Pandit Shiv Charan Saraswat, deceased, had left behind four sons, Sri M. K. Saraswat, Sri Devendra Kumar Saraswat, Sri Gyanendra Kumar Saraswat and Sri Dharmendra Kumar Saraswat, who had now made the application in this Court. Ground (e) is premature, inasmuch as, no actual grant has yet been made in pursuance of the order of this Court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, entitling late Pt. Shiv Charan Saraswat to the issuance of the letters of administration. Ground (e) is premature, inasmuch as, no actual grant has yet been made in pursuance of the order of this Court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, entitling late Pt. Shiv Charan Saraswat to the issuance of the letters of administration. Grounds (a), (b) and (d) are substantially the reproduction of the language of Cls. (a), (b) and (c) of the Explanation to section 263. 38. In respect of Ground No. (a), namely, that the petitioners concealed real and true facts and material from the Court and ground No. (d) what was urged was that it has not been disclosed by the heirs of late Pt. Shiv Charan Saraswat that the only property which was mentioned in the Will was "Udesar House" with small garden attached to it which was assessed to Rs. 75/- as house tax per year and of which approximate valuation was Rs. 15,000/-, while making a prayer to this Court for actual issuance of the letters of administration and delivery of possession of the property over which Receiver had been appointed by this Court. It was also urged that in Schedule "A" appended to the Applications A-291. and A-292 made by Saraswats much more property than was included in the Will was mentioned. The vacant land of Mohal 5, the servant quarters and the land which had been given by the Rani to one J. M. Sinha on which a house was later built was not part of the property bequeathed through the Will. The Collector of Agra, as Receiver, had taken possession of a much larger area than was actually included in the Will but that fact would not help Saraswats in having possession thereof. It was further pointed out that on Mar. 15, 1985, on an objection filed on behalf of the Samiti, this Court (Om Prakash, J.) (by an order recorded on the order sheet at Page 1-2/10) appointed a Commissioner. Sri Sobh Nath Misra, the Commissioner, made a report dated July 11, 1985 (paper No. 306/3). According to the counsel for the Samiti this report and the plan attached to it correctly give out the property which can be said to be included in the Will and the property which cannot be said to be so included. Saraswats filed an objection (paper No. 318) to this report on Jan. According to the counsel for the Samiti this report and the plan attached to it correctly give out the property which can be said to be included in the Will and the property which cannot be said to be so included. Saraswats filed an objection (paper No. 318) to this report on Jan. 28, 1986 saying that though the measurements were substantially correctly given in it and the area comes to about six bighas, the report was wrong where it decided the question of title. 39. The question whether a petitioner for letters of administration had concealed real and true facts and material from the Court so that the grant made in his favour deserved to be revoked is necessarily to be determined with reference to the facts disclosed in the application made by him for the grant. In the present case, the application which was made by late Pandit Shiv Charan Saraswat cannot be said to have concealed real and true facts, in so far as it related to the property included in the Will, even according to the submission now made on behalf of the Samiti. There was no false suggestion in regard to the extent of the property made to him, while applying to this Court in December, 1957, as the property covered by the Will. 40. The further submission in regard to these two grounds which was made by Sri S. N. Misra was that the Rani had made a gift in favour of Virendra Pal Singh and his brother Surendra Pal Singh on Sept. 26, 1957 and also executed a sale deed the same day in favour of Chandra Pal Singh son of Sri Damber Singh, Dhyanpal Singh son of Sri Moti Singh and Gopal and Mahesh both minor sons of Sri Saheb Singh. Both these documents were also presented for registration on Sept. 28, 1957 and related to some property of the Rani. Shiv Charan Saraswat, as a lawyer for Rani Dan Kunwar for several years past, knew about the gift deed and the sale deed. In his application made before this Court on Dec. 20, 1957, he did not make any disclosure thereof. Thus, he would be deemed to have concealed real and true facts and material from the Court and to have obtained the grant fraudulently. In his application made before this Court on Dec. 20, 1957, he did not make any disclosure thereof. Thus, he would be deemed to have concealed real and true facts and material from the Court and to have obtained the grant fraudulently. Sri M. K. Saraswat has rightly pointed out that in his written statement (A-40) filed in Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1958 Surendra Pal Singh described both these documents as forged documents (in paras 18 and 19 of the written statement) and a similar plea was contained in para 17 of the written statement of Raj Narain Chand, a caveator in those proceedings. Moreover, Dumber Singh one of the attesting witnesses of the Will of Rani, who appeared as D. W. 4 in that suit and Saheb Singh (father of Surendra Pal and Virendra Pal, the joint donees in the gift deed) who appeared as D.W. 5 in that suit, described the documents as forged. Thus, the gift deed as well as the sale deed had been repudiated by both the attesting witnesses and the co-donees and the fact about their alleged execution was before this Court in Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1958. These facts are amply borne out from the paper-book (Parts 1 and 2) of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1605(N) of 1970 which was placed on the record of the proceedings before me by Sri M. K. Saraswat without any objection from Sri S. N. Misra on March 3, 1986. 41. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the grant in favour of late Pandit Shiv Charan Saraswat deserves to be revoked on the grounds (a) and (d) put forward by the Samiti. 42. Ground (c) is substantially the same for it talks of the proceedings being defective on account of there being no mention of 'Udesar House' nor details of the alleged property. In fact, it is contrary to what was actually urged before me by Sri Misra who repeatedly drew the attention of the Court to the description of the property at Serial No. I of item No. 3 of the Annexure to the testamentary application dated December 20, 1957 wherein the property had been described as one old Kothi No. 150, 'Undesar House' situate in Civil Lines, Agra, with a small garden attached to.it. The Samiti cannot get an order of revocation of the grant in favour of Pandit Shiv Charan Saraswat on this ground as well. (B) Virendra Pal Singh (now dead); Smt. Chandrawati widow of Virendra Pal Singh, Mahesh Singh and Gopal Singh. Ranjit son of Dan Pal and Km. Ram Kumari daughter of Dan Pal whose applications for revocation are A-328, A-338, A-340 and A-341 have said that property which was covered by the gift deed and the sale deed, both of Sept. 26, 1957 and which were both presented for registration on Sept. 28, 1957, was not disclosed while Shiv Charan Saraswat made the application before this Court on Dec. 20, 1957. As such, the grant in his favour deserved to be revoked. Surendra Pal, one of the co-donees in the gift deed, was before this Court in Testamentary Suit No. 3 of 1958. The stand which was taken in respect of the gift deed and the sale deed in the suit has been noticed earlier. Non- disclosure of these documents in those proceedings has been found not to afford sufficient ground for revocation of the grant while discussing the case of the Samiti. Quite apart from it, what is noticeable is that there is no assertion even in the present proceedings that the gift was ever accepted by the donees during the lifetime of Rani Dan Kunwar. The original gift deed has not been produced. During a long period between September 1,957, when the gift deed as also the sale deed were allegedly executed. and the year 1984, when the four sons of late Pandit Shiv Charan Saraswat came before this Court after the decision of the Supreme Court dated February 28, 1984, no claim based upon the gift deed and the sale deed was made by the donees or the vendees in this Court in respect of the property covered by these documents. This is an additional reason why the grounds, founded on the gift deed and the sale deed, which are mentioned in para 10 of the affidavit of Smt. Chandrawati Devi sworn on Mur. 7, 1986 and filed in support of the application A-340 dated July 16, 1986 cannot be accepted as furnishing sufficient ground now for revoking the grant. This is an additional reason why the grounds, founded on the gift deed and the sale deed, which are mentioned in para 10 of the affidavit of Smt. Chandrawati Devi sworn on Mur. 7, 1986 and filed in support of the application A-340 dated July 16, 1986 cannot be accepted as furnishing sufficient ground now for revoking the grant. The grounds are these : "(a) That the property which has been mentioned in the Registered Gift Deed which was executed before the death of Thakurani Dan Kunwar could not he treated as part of the property in respect of which the Will could operate and in law the property stands withdrawn from the purview of the Will. (b) That the Registered Sale Deed dated 26-9-57, property mentioned in the Registered Sale Deed stands withdrawn from the purview of the Will and therefore no letters of, administration could be granted in respect of the said Will. (c) That the inclusion of the property mentioned in the said gift deed and the Registered Sale Deed by Shri M. K. Saraswat and other, is sufficient fraud in the eye of law inasmuch as the proceedings now continue to obtain the grant as advised, by trying to secure letters of administration would be defective in substance. (d) That obtaining an order and now obtaining a grant fraudulently by making a false suggestion that the property belonging to the Objector is a part of the Will and by concealing from this Hon'ble Court this material fact, justifies revocation and annulment of the grant. (e) That the order was obtained by means of untrue allegations and facts erroneously in point of law to justify the ground when the petitioners fully well knew that the property admitted to be included in the grant did not belong to Thakurani Dan Kunwar." (C) Baldeo Singh and Ramendra Singh approached this Court through application A-332 dated Mar. 19, 1986. They claim to be the grandsons and thus, heirs and legal representatives of late Smt. Sarla Devi. They say that they are entitled to get the amount of the decree in favour of Smt. Sarla Devi against Smt. Dan Kunwar referred to in item No. 4 of Annexure 'B' of the application made by late Shiv Charan Saraswat for the grant. They say that they are entitled to get the amount of the decree in favour of Smt. Sarla Devi against Smt. Dan Kunwar referred to in item No. 4 of Annexure 'B' of the application made by late Shiv Charan Saraswat for the grant. The letters of administration, when actually issued to the heirs of Shiv Charan Saraswat, should be only in respect of the value of the bonds after deducting the amount of the decree A-334, supported by an affidavit of Gyanendra Saraswat, is an objection filed to the application (A-332). A-337 is another counter-affidavit by Gyanendra Saraswat to A-332 and its accompanying affidavit. What has been urged before me by M.K. Saraswat is that the prayer made by Baldeo Singh and Ramendra Singh should not be granted, inter alia, for the reason that no details have been given about the decree so far and that it is always open to the heirs of Smt. Sarla Devi to apply for the execution of the decree if they can do so in law. Issuance of letters of administration cannot be made subject to a direction that the amount of the decree be paid to the heirs of Smt. Sarla Devi. The fact whether they are the heirs and their right to execute the decree may be left to be determined in the appropriate proceedings. There is substance in this submission. The issuance of the letters of administration will only result in the representation of the estate of late Smt. Dan Kunwar through the persons to whom the letters are issued. The estate would, nevertheless, be subject to such legal liabilities which can be fastened upon it in law. (D) Pancham Singh approached this Court through application (A-327). He says that through an agreement dated Dec. 29, 1954 Rani Dan Kunwar had agreed to sell, inter alia, "one Kothi old dilapidated No. 150, Civil Lines, Agra, Udeshar House, and land within hata. and the boundaries given" in respect whereof suit No. 3 of 1985 for specific performance is pending before the Civil Judge, Mainpuri. The grant deserved to be. revoked for non-disclosure of the suit and, in any case, it should be made subject to the result of the suit. The A-335 is the counter-affidavit sworn by Gyanendra Saraswat in the application made by Pancham Singh. The grant deserved to be. revoked for non-disclosure of the suit and, in any case, it should be made subject to the result of the suit. The A-335 is the counter-affidavit sworn by Gyanendra Saraswat in the application made by Pancham Singh. It bas been urged by Sri M. K. Saraswat on behalf of the heirs of late Pt. Shiv Charan Saraswat in regard to the claim of Pancham Singh that in the suit for specific performance of the agreement set up by Pancham Singh, the four sons of Pt. Shiv Charan Saraswat are defendants, having been impleaded by the plaintiff Pancham Singh. The estate of the Rani is described in the suit as being represented by these four sons of late Pandit Shiv Charan Saraswat. No revocation of the grant can, therefore, be sought by Pancham Singh in these circumstances. The submission is well founded. The rights of the parties founded upon the agreement would be determined in the suit instituted by Pancham Singh. On his own showing, Pancham Singh has only claimed on the basis of an agreement for sale of the year 1954 which is sought to be enforced through a suit now filed by him. At the time when he was seeking the grant, Pandit Shiv Charan Saraswat could hardly have disclosed the existence of any such suit. Sons of Shiv Charan Saraswat being parties to the suit were also not called upon to make any disclosure about it in their applications made before this Court after the decision of the Supreme Court because its pendency could not be said to adversely affect their claim for issuance of the letters of administration in regard to the estate of late Rani Dan Kunwar which they were representing in the suit, as heirs of late Pandit Shiv Charan Saraswat. (E) Basant Lal and Amar Nath : Their prayer for revocation of the grant is contained in the affidavit (A-330) filed on Mar. 5, 1986. Earlier to it, they had filed an application (A- 310) on Jan. 7, 1986 with the prayer that they may be impleaded as parties to the proceedings and after hearing them, the applications made by the sons of late Pandit Shiv Charan Saraswat be rejected. A-312 is a counter-affidavit of Gyanendra Saraswat containing replies to the assertions made in A- 310. A-331 is the rejoinder affidavit in reply to this counter-affidavit. 7, 1986 with the prayer that they may be impleaded as parties to the proceedings and after hearing them, the applications made by the sons of late Pandit Shiv Charan Saraswat be rejected. A-312 is a counter-affidavit of Gyanendra Saraswat containing replies to the assertions made in A- 310. A-331 is the rejoinder affidavit in reply to this counter-affidavit. With A-325, an application claiming special costs, Gyanendra Saraswat has filed a counter-affidavit replying to the contents of the affidavit (A-330). 43. In the application (A-310), supported by the affidavit of one Sadhu Singh Tyagi claiming to be the duly constituted attorney of Sarvasri Basant Lal and Amar Nath, it has been given out that Rani Dan Kunwar was only the owner of Malwa of the Kothi bearing No. 150 Udesar House. The owners of the land were Pt. Krishan Goswami and Triloki Nath Goswami who had sold 3 bigha 14 biswas of the land to Gulab Avas Sahkari Samiti bearing old Khasra No. 660/755 (area 2 bighas 19 biswas) and 660/2M 15 biswas bearing new khasra 441 Mohal 5 biswas Khevat No. 1 village Sarjaipur, Tahsil and District Agra and that balance land of Mohal 15 Khevat No. 1 bearing old khasra No. 660 and new khasra No. 441 having an area of 3 bighas 6 biswas was their property. The sons of Pt. Shiv Charan Saraswat were illegally laying claim to it by including the area of about 6 bighas in the application made before this Court after the Supreme Court decision. The entire land was within the municipal limit of Agra and was non-zamindari area so that their right as Zamindars was subsisting. Details as to how the father of these objectors, namely, late Sri Kalyan Das claimed to have zamindari rights in the land have been disclosed in this application. In a subsequent affidavit '(A-330) the same stand is reiterated after disclosing some further facts. It is in this subsequent affidavit that the plea for revocation of the grant has been made. Details as to how the father of these objectors, namely, late Sri Kalyan Das claimed to have zamindari rights in the land have been disclosed in this application. In a subsequent affidavit '(A-330) the same stand is reiterated after disclosing some further facts. It is in this subsequent affidavit that the plea for revocation of the grant has been made. The basic objections have been enumerated in para 15 in the following terms : "(a) That as Thakurani Dan Kunwar was not the owner of the land on which Udesar House 150 Civil Lines, Agra, had been constructed, the land and bagh cannot be included in the Will and as such the heirs of late Shri S. C. Saraswat are not entitled to letters of administration to the property as claimed by the applicants. (b) That as the Zamindari Abolition Act is not applicable to the present land, U.P. Tenancy Act will apply and under the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act as provided by section 33, U.P. Tenancy Act, such property cannot be disposed of by Will and therefore the heirs of late Sri S. C. Saraswat are not entitled for letters of administration of the property mentioned above and claimed by them. (c) That the land on which the house has been constructed is the land belonging to the objectors and as such under the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act objectors are entitled for the protection of their right by this Hon'ble Court. (d) That the property which the heirs of late Sri S. C. Saraswat are claiming now are excess of the property which has been mentioned in the Will and as such they are not entitled to letter of administration." In the succeeding para 16 have been enumerated the grounds upon which the plea for revocation is founded. The grounds are these : "(A) As the grant was defective as it was fraudulently obtained by making false claim and concealing from the Hon'ble Court, the material fact that testatrix had no claim to the property and the grant had become useless inoperative by disclosure of the, correct fact. (B) The grant was obtained by means of untrue allegations of the fact in respect of the right of testatrix which she did not possess and therefore, no rights could be transferred. (C) That grant has been made without citing the parties who should have been made. (B) The grant was obtained by means of untrue allegations of the fact in respect of the right of testatrix which she did not possess and therefore, no rights could be transferred. (C) That grant has been made without citing the parties who should have been made. party in the proceedings." 44. In their counter-affidavit (A-312) and the other counter-affidavit filed along with the application (A-325) the sons of Sheo Charan Saraswat have given their version in regard to the claim of Basant Lal and Amar Nath. Certified copies of various documents, referred to by them, were also filed by the sons of Sheo Charan Saraswat along with the application (A-343) on July 27, 1986. The case that the sons of late Sheo Charan Saraswat have put forward is that the bungalow known as Udesar 'House was constructed by an English Army man Tomas William Collins whose son Alfred J. Collins sold it on Sept. 6, 1971 to one Sri Bansi Lal who, by a sale deed of Mar. 28, 1986, sold it to Raj Salig Ram Bahadur. By a sale deed dated April 9, 1895 Raj Salig Ram Bahadur sold it to Kunwar Durgpal Singh who died in the year 1924 leaving behind Rani Dan Kunwar, his widow, as his sole and exclusive heir. Rani Dan Kunwar was thus owner of the entire bungalow and the land lying in its compound bounded by a regular boundary wall having an area of 6 bighas. She leased out a portion in the year 1954 to one Sri J. N. Sinha. The land on which the residential bungalow stands does not belong to the Zamindar-objectors in any other sense except that they are entitled, as Zamindar, to the rent recorded in the revenue papers. None of the Zamindars had ever been in actual possession over the land. Further, that Basant Lal participated in attestation of the Will and appeared as a witness in the Testamentary Suit to prove the Will and its attestation. In the circumstances he could not be permitted now to seek revocation of the grant after a lapse of nearly 28 years. 45. From the evidence adduced in these proceedings by the parties, it is clear that they are seriously at issue on the question of ownership of land forming part of Udesar House. In the circumstances he could not be permitted now to seek revocation of the grant after a lapse of nearly 28 years. 45. From the evidence adduced in these proceedings by the parties, it is clear that they are seriously at issue on the question of ownership of land forming part of Udesar House. But it would not be appropriate in these summary proceedings to record a decision about it, particularly, when the parties have come forward with a lot of documentary evidence. Moreover, Basant Lal having participated in the attestation of the Will and having come forward to prove its execution and attestation, it would not be a sound exercise of discretion to permit him and his brother Amar Nath now, after a lapse of nearly 28 years, to seek the revocation of the grant of letters of administration in regard to that Will. 46. The only consequence of the grant of letters of administration would be that the estate of late Rani Dan Kunwar will be managed by the heirs of late Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat a legal representatives. It would not by itself vest them with any title in the property. The grant is only an enabling one so that the estate of deceased Rani is represented through a human being who sues or may be sued according to the tenor of the Will. A claim about title would have to be made before an appropriate forum. 47. In the circumstances of the instant case, not only are the grounds put forward by the various objector-applicants for the revocation or annulment of the grant insufficient but it would also be inexpedient to revoke the grant after nearly 28 years of the institution of the testamentary suit in which it came to be made. The prayer for revocation of the grant deserves to be and is rejected. 48. Before dealing with the applications made by the sons of late Pt. Sheo Charan Saraswat it may be noticed that one of the objections which Sri S. N. Misra raised was that the prayer for issuance of the letters of administration was in respect of the Will attached but the original Will was not 6o be found on the record. As such, the letters could not be issued. This submission is not tenable. The original will was undisputedly brought before the Court in the testamentary suit. As such, the letters could not be issued. This submission is not tenable. The original will was undisputedly brought before the Court in the testamentary suit. Its copy has been filed by both the parties. The issuance of the letters of administration cannot be declined on this ground. 49. Coming now to the applications made by the Saraswats : A-290, which prays that the letters of administration be issued in favour of the applicants in respect of the property mentioned in the Will of Smt. Dan Kunwar dated Mar. 10, 1957 and that the bonds mentioned in Schedule 'A' be delivered to them is allowed. Letters of administration shall issue after the requisite amount of court-fee is deposited and the estate duty clearance certificate is filed. 50. The applications (A-291 and A-292) shall also stand allowed to the extent that the property mentioned in Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C', appended to these applications, in so far as they were taken into possession by the Receiver appointed by this Court, in pursuance of the order of appointment, shall be delivered to applicant Saraswats. The Receiver shall also render accounts to this Court in respect of these properties for the period that they have been in its possession. 51. The application (A-295) shall stand dismissed as not pressed in view of the statement made to that effect by Sri M. K. Saraswat before me on March 5, 1986. Application (A-315) shall stand filed. 52. Coming to the application (A-325) suffice it to say that, inasmuch as this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim put forward by the various claimants in these summary proceedings and it is, consequently, difficult to describe the same to be false and vexatious, the prayer for award of Rs. 27,000/-as damages and compensatory costs is rejected. 53. The various applications, referred to in the body of the order, shall stand finally disposed of in terms of the order with costs (one set) to Sri M. K. Saraswat and his three brothers who are applicants in applications (A-290, A-291 and A-292). No costs shall be payable by the Collectors of Mainpuri, Agra, Moradabad and Etah. Costs (one set) shall be payable only by those persons who objected to the issuance of the letters of administration and sought revocation of the grant.