Judgment :- Mishra, J.: A learned single Judge of this Court has allowed an application for revocation the probate in O.P.No.15 of 1982 granted in favour of the appellant. Hence the appeal Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this Court. 2. One S.T.Subbaraya Mudaliar who died on 23rd August, 1978, executed a will with to his properties including a property at Mallan Pon-nappa Mudali Street, Triplicane city of Madras. This property, according to the respondent herein, belonged to one Mudaliar who had four sons, Manicka Mudaliar, Thanga-velu Mudaliar, Kuppuswamy Mudaliar, Kamatchi Mudaliar. Manicka Mudaliar died leaving behind his only son Loganatha Mudaliar. Thangavelu Mudaliar died leaving behind Doraisami Mudaliar. Kuppuswami Mudaliar died leaving the respondent herein and Kamatchi Mudaliar died without any. 3. Loganatha Mudaliar died leaving his only son Arumugha Mudaliar. Arumugha filed a suit for partition of his share in the joint family property. It had so happened that the property in Triplicane had been purchased by Subbaraya Mudaliar in Court Arumugha attacked the court auction purchase and obtained a preliminary decree aside the court auction sale and directing Subbaraya Mudaliar to pay a sum of Rs.3,092. was alleged that Subbaraya Mudaliar paid the amount. He however died leaving his sons and six daughters, one daughter pre-deceasing him. Subbaraya Mudaliar possession of the property in May, 1981. The respondent herein, it is claimed, purchased 1/8th share in the property from one of the daughters of Subbaraya Mudaliar, Raieswari, for a consideration of Rs.4,000 and another l/8th share for a consideration Rs.3,000 from the legal heirs of Indirani. He filed a suit in O.S.No.906 of 1980 on the City Civil Court, Madras, for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share property. He however came to know in the said proceeding that a will was probated 18.2.1982. Alleging that the appellant herein was well aware of the fact that respondent) had purchased 1/4th share in the property and that he was deliberately cited as one of the persons interested in the property by the appellant herein application for grant of probate the respondent herein moved the court for revocation probate. 4. Alleging that the appellant herein was well aware of the fact that respondent) had purchased 1/4th share in the property and that he was deliberately cited as one of the persons interested in the property by the appellant herein application for grant of probate the respondent herein moved the court for revocation probate. 4. In this application, the respondent stated that Rajeswari, daughter of Subbaraya and the husband of Indirani for himself and on behalf of his minor son transferred Rajeswari ’ s l/8th share in the property bearing door No.75, Mallan Ponnappa Mudali for a consideration of Rs.4,000 on 7.12.1979 and Indirani’s 1/8th share in the property 21.12.1979 for a sum of Rs.3,000. He thereafter filed the suit in O.S.No.906 of 1980 file of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for partition and separate possession. He impleaded all the heirs of Subbaraya Mudaliar as defendants. They took the defence their father had executed a will and that application for grant of probate had already filed by the appellant herein. It is then stated in the petition: “The said suit came upon list for trial on 16.12.1982 and the examination of the appli-cant was over on 17.12.1982. is only on that day, suddenly without notice a probated will was sought to be marked suit. It is only at that time I came to know that a will in respect of the premises Mallan Ponnappa Mudali Street was probated by this Hon’ble Court ex parte in the O.P. on 13.2.1982” ...It is noteworthy to mention here that the heirs of the late Subbaraya Mudaliar who derive benefit from the alleged will said to have been executed Subbaraya Mudaliar have not whispered even in all proceedings regarding the probate will....The very same counsel who is conducting case for the heirs of Subbaraya Mudaliar the counsel who filed the above O.P. for probate and who is aware of that I have purchased the substantial portion of the property covered in the alleged will said to have executed. The petitioner Ponnuswamy Mudaliar and also the heirs of the late Subbaraya Mudaliar are all quite alive to the fact that I have purchased V4th share of the property....In this regard a notice was already issued through my counsel to the executor, the petitioner above O.P. and the other heirs of Subbaraya Mudaliar that I have purchased the l/4th share of the property for valuable consideration and attacking the alleged will have been executed by Subbaraya Mudaliar. All the persons including the petitioner above O.P. received the notice and replied through their counsel on 10.9.1990. In the notices, I also demanded a copy of the alleged will which was not complied with. Right the beginning I was attacking and challenging the alleged will said to have been executed late Subbaraya Mudaliar as a rank forgery and not valid in law.....Suppressing all these and without making me as a party in the above O.P. the petitioner has snatched away parte order of probate from this Hon’ble Court by misguiding this Hon’ble Court....... 5. It is not necessary to take notice of the details stated in the objections and rejoinders on behalf of the appellant, for, this has” not been disputed before us that the respondent herein had not been cited in the probate application as a person interested in the property is however clear that the appellant in his application for probate cited all the sons daughters of Subbaraya Mudaliar including Rajeswari. While all other heirs cited petition filed consent affidavits accepting the genuineness of the will, Rajeswari did not Before however the probate was granted, Rajeswari’s name was excluded from the No notice thus was ever issued to her. She, of course, in the meanwhile had transferred interest, if the claim of purchase of her l/8th interest in the property by the respondent herein is correct, before her name was removed from the citation. 6. The disposition of one’s estate by a testament is a rule that applies to succession to the property of a Hindu when the will is found written, whether registered or not, and attested by witness. Indian Succession Act takes care of the applications for probate or letters administration with the will annexed and the contents there of stating fully the time of the testator ’ s death, that the writing annexed was his last will and testament that it was duly executed etc. Indian Succession Act takes care of the applications for probate or letters administration with the will annexed and the contents there of stating fully the time of the testator ’ s death, that the writing annexed was his last will and testament that it was duly executed etc. The Court which is empowered to grant probate or the letters of administration however has to issue citation before the grant of administration calling on the next of kin accept or refuse. However, if all conditions are satisfied, due execution is proved and the attesting witnesses corroborate, probate or letters of administration is granted. Sec.263 the Act however states: “263. Revocation or annulment for just cause: The grant of probate or Letters Administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. Explanation: Just cause shall be deemed to exist, where- (a) the proceeding 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 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 Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in material respect.” One of the illustrations of just cause for revocation or annulment is, “the grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited.” In Anil Behari Ghosh v. Latika Bala Dassi, (1955)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 84: 1955 S.C.J. 578: (1955)2 S.C.R. 252 .A.I.R. 1955 S. C. 566, it has been stated by the Supreme Court: “The omission to issue citations to persons who should have been apprised of the probate proceedings may 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. 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. But in the present case we are not satisfied all the circumstances of the case that just cause within the meaning of Sec.263 had been made out.” In a judgment of this Court in Sivagnanam v. Sadananda Mudaliar, (1978)1 M.L.J. Division Bench has taken notice of this provision and noted the judgment of the Supreme Court to state the law in these words: “The grant of a probate may be revoked for a just cause; ‘just cause’ is explained in the of the section itself. The various clauses which explain the expression ‘just cause guidelines for the court, whose assistance is sought for revocation of a proper grant the Act. As revocation of a grant implies the effect of the earlier valid judicial order court, not only there should be caution in acceding to such a request but strict proof existence of one or other of the circumstances enumerated in explanation to Sec.263 Indian Succession Act is necessary before the Court could accede to such request.” “Revocation should be for a just cause. The illustrations to the section also provide material to the Court as to when it could exercise its discretion to reverse a grant. Illustration (ii) to Sec.263 probably is the only material illustration which has an impact on the facts circumstances of this same.....Then it would be a just cause which would enable the Court revoke the grant. We doubt it is fundamental that a judgment in rem, should be pronounced in the presence of all parties interested, however slight such interest may be. But this axiomatic. Each case has to be decided on its own merit. We doubt it is fundamental that a judgment in rem, should be pronounced in the presence of all parties interested, however slight such interest may be. But this axiomatic. Each case has to be decided on its own merit. Absence of just cause cannot presumed on a priori consideration.” Speaking in the same vein yet another Bench of this Court in Shanmugham Chetty Chinnammal, (1978)1 M.L.J. 496, has said: “The mere absence of a special citation in proceedings in which probate of a will is granted not, where the parson to whom a citation has not been issued is otherwise aware proceedings, a ‘just’ cause for revocation.” The law stated above by a Bench of this court is similar to the one stated by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajeswari Devi v. Harilal, A.I.R. 1978 M.P. 201: 1978 M.P.L.J. has been pointed out in the said case that: “Person claiming issue of citation and its service must show prima facie case for revocation. The absence of citations in a Case in which they are ordered but did not issue does itself constitute just cause for revocation of probate. In cases where citation had not ordered, the partly impugning the will on the ground of his non-citation must first show he ought to have been cited, before the burden of proof is shifted to the executor to that the defect in the proceedings was not one of substances and that no just cause revocation exists.” The Madhya Pradesh High Court has said in the case cited above that absence or non of citation will not be a defect of substance so as to constitute a just cause under Sec. of the Act where non-cited party has knowledge of probate proceedings or where he prejudicially affected thereby. It is easy thus on the facts of the instant case to say that the respondent has undoubtedly some interest in the property which he claimed as purchaser from Rajeswari and the Indirani. It is possible on the facts proved to accept that the appellant knew about sale deeds executed by Rajeswari and the heirs of Indirani respectively. He for the reason was a person who ought to have been cited before the probate was granted. 7. On this thesis it would be reasonable to hold that there was a just cause to the respondent to seek revocation of the probate. 8. He for the reason was a person who ought to have been cited before the probate was granted. 7. On this thesis it would be reasonable to hold that there was a just cause to the respondent to seek revocation of the probate. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has however contended that the omission to citation to persons, as held by this court in the past as well as the Supreme Court, should have been apprised of the probate proceedings may be a just cause, but alone be enough to efface or nullify the probate. It will be necessary as held by this court as the Supreme Court to find that the respondent was unaware of the proceedings or had no opportunity to enter caveat and further that his absence in the proceedings resulted in some miscarriage of justice. 9. Learned counsel has heavily relied upon the fact that at the first opportunity in the partition, they pleaded the will and the respondent thus came to know about the having thus come to know about the will could always enter caveat or appear before court to oppose the grant of probate. There may be truth in what the appellant say respondent had known about the probate proceedings and that he could have entered caveat. A caveat is a step preliminary to the commencement of any action. The caveator by a caveat puts the court to caution nothing should be done in the proceeding without giving him an opportunity of quest ion arising in respect to the grant of probate. This course was open to the respondent. But then it is conceded before us that one of the vendors of the respondent, Rajeswari, besides others, was one of the parties cited in the petition and she entitled to a notice. While all other persons cited gave consent affidavits to the probate, Rajeswari was not one of them. While the contest in the partition suit continued appellant removed the name of Rajeswari from the citation and thus deprived her opportunity to object to the probate. Rajcswari had exercised her right of disposition property allegedly covered by the will only on the basis that there was no valid will kind or that the properties were to go to the heirs and legal representatives of the accordance with law of intestate succession. Rajcswari had exercised her right of disposition property allegedly covered by the will only on the basis that there was no valid will kind or that the properties were to go to the heirs and legal representatives of the accordance with law of intestate succession. Since Rajcswari had been cited and could raise all such objections which as the transferee from Rajeswari the respondent they could genuinely believe that the will be contested and the proceedings for would be contentious. There was no need thus for the respondent to enter caveat so Rajeswari was cited and he had reasons to believe that she would raise all such which he would/ could raise. Moreover, it is easy on the one hand to suggest respondent knew about the probate proceedings and thus had the opportunity caveat and question why did he not enter caveat if he had some genuine grounds to the grant of probate. On the other hand, the same would apply to the appellant having come to know about the transfer by Rajeswari of her interest in favour respondent and heirs and legal representatives of Indirani, their interest in the property favour of the respondent, he did not cite the respondent as a person interested. In course when Rajeswari’s name was removed one could think of citing the transferee Rajeswari in her place. That the appellant did not do. A just cause to seek revocation by the courts will not be ignored if the propounded conduct is suspicious. We find suspicion shrouding the probate proceeding for the reason of removal of the Rajeswari and not substituting in her place the name of her transferee. 10. For the reason aforesaid, we find no fault in the order of the learned single has rightly revoked the grant of probate. It will be fair that party gets full opportunity the contentions arc decided in accordance with law. There is no merit in the appeal. appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.