Judgment : V. Ramasubramanian. J. By an order dated 12. 2009, the petition for grant of probate O.P.No.734 of 2007, in respect of the last Will and Testament of one late S.V.Lakshmi Ammal, was ordered in favour of one Dr. Ms. Chandrika Ayyar, the daughter of the Testatrix. 2. Subsequently. One Ms.P. Papayammal came up with an application in A.No.2402 of 2008 under Section 263f the Indian Succession Act, seeking revocation of the Probate, on the ground that she was the daughter of the Testatrix and that Probate was obtained behind her back, by Dr.Chandrika Ayyar. On 24. 2008, time was granted to Dr.Chandrika Ayyar, for filing counter in A.No.2402 of 2008 and in the meantime, she was directed not to alienate the property by making use of the Probate. 3. Apart from filing the counter, Dr.Chandrika Ayyar, hereinafter referred to as the “petitioner in the main O.P.”, has come up with two applications viz.,(i) A. No.2537 of 2008 for vacating the restraint order dated 24. 2004 and (ii)A. No.2645 of 2008 for taking cognizance of the offences allegedly committed by P. Papayammal, hereinafter referred to as the “rival claimant”, by making false statements and to initiate action against her. 4. I have heard Mr.T.R.Mani, learned senior counsel for the rival claimant (Ms. P.Papayammal, who is the petitioner in A. No.2402 of 2008 seeking revocation of probate) and Mr. M. Subaramaniyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the main O.P.(Dr.ms.Chandrika Ayyar, the applicant in the other two applications), 5. In the main O.P. No.734 of 2007, the petitioner Dr.Chandrika Ayyar came up with a claim- .(a) that she is the only daughter of late O.V. parthasarathy and late S.V.Lakshmi ammal; .(b) that her father predeceased her mother at Calcutta; .(c) that her mother had purchased the property bearing Plot No.66,Door No.30/21,Arcot Street, T.Nagar,Chennai-17 under am sale Deed dated 28. In the main O.P. No.734 of 2007, the petitioner Dr.Chandrika Ayyar came up with a claim- .(a) that she is the only daughter of late O.V. parthasarathy and late S.V.Lakshmi ammal; .(b) that her father predeceased her mother at Calcutta; .(c) that her mother had purchased the property bearing Plot No.66,Door No.30/21,Arcot Street, T.Nagar,Chennai-17 under am sale Deed dated 28. 1940 and that her mother had also constructed a house therein and was in possession and enjoyment thereof; .(d) that during November 2005,she had engaged the services of “Sree Nursing Care” run by one Vijaya Baskar to look after her aged and ailing mother (Testatrix),who had by then been discharged from Isbel Hospital; .(e) that the said Vijaya Basker was to engage two nurses in turn system for a period of one month during November-December 2005 and the fee was to be collected by Vijaya Basker at her house; .(f) That the petitioner’s mother (Testatrix) died on 212. 2005 at her own house and that two weeks before her death, the nursing services were stopped; .(g) That Vijaya Basker later visited the house of the petitioner twice and lastly on 6. 2007 and that on 6. 2007, Vijaya Basker asked her for a glass of water and when she was pouring water, into the glass, she was knocked out unconscious; (h) That when she regained consciousness, she found herself in an apartment, being held captive for three days by Vijaya Basker; .(i) That she was later taken to a ground floor apartment and illegally detained till 6. 2007; .(j) That she had sustained injuries on her head and had sutures on her scalp and her face was swollen; .(k) That on 6. 2007, she was given three bunches of keys to her steel almirah, the “safe” at home and her bank locker let off in Jagadeeswaran Street, T.Nager, where many of her relatives lived. .(l) That with the help of her relatives, she went home the next day sand found all the original documents, tax demand cards, bank pass books, cheque books and the original will of her mother missing from almirah; .(m) That on 20.6.2007, she gave a complaint to the Commissioner of Police against Vijaya Basker about the assault, abduction and the theft of documents; .(n) That even on 6. 2007, her niece J.Vidya had given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Mambalam Police Station about the sudden disappearance of the petitioner from her house on 6. 2007 and a FIR was registered in Crime No.481 of 2007; .(o) That, Vijaya Basker was later arrested and was also detained under the Goondas Act; .(p) That since the original Will was stolen; she had filed the O.P., with a certified copy available with her; .(q) That under the Will the petitioner was appointed as the Executrix and the property was bequeathed in her favour; .(r) That the Testatrix did not leave behind any Will other than the one which forms the subject matter of the proceedings; .(s) That the Will was attested by two wit-ness K.S. Narayanan and K.R. Venkataraman, both of whom are not alive, but the Testatrix and one of the Attesters are close relatives of one S.Jagannathan, who was familiar with the handwriting and signature of both of them; .(t) That she is the only legal heir of her mother and the sole beneficiary under the Will and that there is no next of kin or other person interested, to be impleaded; .(u) That she was filing the petition in her capacity as the Executrix and that the amount of assets likely to come to her hands would not exceed in the aggregate, a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000 /-; and .(v) That she may be permitted to prove the will in common form. 6. On 10. 2007, when the O.P. was posted before Court, PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J., passed the following order:- “The learned counsel has produced a copy of the public notice regarding the loss of the original title deeds. The learned counsel also submitted that this petitioner was kidnapped and the complaint is also filed to be received as evidence. However, since the certified copy of the will is produced and the probate is asked for on the basis and that and since it is stated that the will was also lost along with the original documents. The learned counsel shall effect a publication in the same newspaper were the original public notice was issued stating that the plaint has been lodged in respect of that incident and also that O.P.NO.734of 2007 has been filed for grant of Probate. “The publication shall be effected on 210. 2007 Post on210. 2007.” 7. The learned counsel shall effect a publication in the same newspaper were the original public notice was issued stating that the plaint has been lodged in respect of that incident and also that O.P.NO.734of 2007 has been filed for grant of Probate. “The publication shall be effected on 210. 2007 Post on210. 2007.” 7. After effecting the paper publication in pursuance of the above order, the main O.P., was director to be posted before the learned Master, for recording evidence. On 111. 2007, the petitioner in the main O.P., examined herself as PW.1 and the following documents were marked as Exhibits:- .(i) The certified copy of the will dated the 21.05.1998 as Exhibit P-1. .(ii) The original death certificate of the testatrix as Exhibit P-4. (iii) The affidavit of asserts as Exhibit P-3. .(iv) The paper publication in ‘The Hindu’ dated 14.06.2007,notifying the loss of original documents including the original will, as Exhibit P-4. .(v) The paper publication in ‘The Hindu’ dated 010. 2007, made in accordance with the order of the court dated 010. 2007 as Exhibit P-5. 8. One S. Jagannathan, a third party, was examined as PW. 2. He deposed that the Testatrix was his mother-in-law’s sister and that he was present at the time of execution of Exhibit P-1 and that he had seen the attesting witness affix their signatures in the Will. He also deposed that he saw the Testatrix signing the Will and that she was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. He further deposed that both the attesting witness were no more. The affidavit of PW.2 was field as Exhibit P-6. It is pertinent to note that PW.2 was aged 82 years. 9. After evidence was recorded, the O.P. was posted before Court for orders on 012. 2007. On that date, R. BANUMATH, j., passed on order, directing the counsel for the petitioner to produce an Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 1. 1988 and also the Death Certificate of the father of the petitioner O.V. Parthasarathy. Thereafter, on 12. 2007, this Court ordered the main O.P., as prayed for and directed the issue of Probate in favour of the petitioner Ms. Chandrika Ayyar. 10. After about two months of the grant of Probate, the rival claimant field the application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, seeking revocation of the Probate. Thereafter, on 12. 2007, this Court ordered the main O.P., as prayed for and directed the issue of Probate in favour of the petitioner Ms. Chandrika Ayyar. 10. After about two months of the grant of Probate, the rival claimant field the application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, seeking revocation of the Probate. It appears from the records that an application was originally field through a counsel by name Mr.T. Immanuel Coke on 28.02.2008, after serving a copy of the affidavit and Judge’s summons on the counsel for the petitioner in the main O.P., on 27.02.2008. But the application was returned for certain defects on 7, 11.03.2008. After complying with the returns, the application appears to have been represented with a change of Vakalat through the present counsel on record. Therefore the affidavit in support of the application for revocation pf Probate, A.No.2402 of 2008, is seen to have been sworn to only on 17.03.2008, through the application has been field earlier on 28.02.2008. I am compelled to make a reference to this, in view of a controversy raised in the course of arguments that the averments in the affidavit sworn to on 27.02.2008, were different from the averments in the affidavit sworn to on 17.03.2008, at the time of its representation. 11. In the affidavit in support of the application for revocation of Probate, A.No.2402 of 2008, the rival claimant P.Papayammal has averred as follows- .(a) that she is the only legal/issue of late O.V.Parthasarathy and late S.V.Lakshmi Ammal; .(b) that the property in question was purchased by her mother under a Sale Deed dated 23.08.1940 and that ever since the day of purchase, the mother was in possession and enjoyment of the same; .(c) that after the death of the father O.V.Parthasarathy at Calcutta on 15.02.1986, she and her mother, shifted to the above property from Calcutta; .(d) that her mother Lakshmi Ammal died intestate on 212. 2005 at Chennai and that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property in her own rights as its lawful owner, having inherited the same from her mother, .(e) that she came to know that the petitioner in the main O.P., was claiming ownership on the basis of a connected and forged Will and that she had field a petition for Probate without making her a party to the O.P., and .(f) that her mother Lakshmi Ammal never executed any Will and that petitioner in the main O.P., had obtained Probate with-out making her a party, by abuse of process of law. 12. interestingly, the affidavit of Papayammal (rival claimant) sworn to on 17.03.2008, in support of A.No.2402 of 2008, indicates her to be a resident of 129/2B, G Block, First Main Road, No. 75/4, Anna Nagar East, Chennai-102, through in paragraphs-4 and 5 of the said affidavit, she claimed that after the death of her father on 15.02.1986, she and her mother shifted to the house in question(at T.Nagar) and that she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. 13. in the affidavit sworn to by Papayammal on 27.02.2008, field originally through her previous counsel Mr. T. fmmanuel Coke, a copy of which had been served on the counsel for the petitioner in the main O.P., and the copy of which is now filed as one of the documents, Papayammal has made the following averments:- .(a) that her mother Lakshmi Ammal had purchased the property at PlotNo.66,Arcot Mudaliar Road, T. Nagar, on 23rd August (year not mentioned) from one A. Kannappa Chettiar and that her mother was in possession of the property till her death; .(b) that her father O.V. Parthasarathy died on 15.02.1986 at Calcutta and thereafter, she and her mother came down to Chennai and settled at the said house; .(c) that she lived in the said property with her mother, till her death on 212. 2005 and that thereafter she shifted her residence to the address at Anna Nagar where her close relative had been taking dare of her; .(d) that the property is kept under lock and key and that after she shifted to Anna Nagar, she permitted her relative by name Vijaya Baskar to look after the safety and security of the property; .(e) that the petitioner in the main O.P., had no connection with her mother Lakshmi Ammal and that she started troubling her by creating an impression as though she is the legal heir of Lakshmi Ammal; .(f) that the petitioner in the main O.P., created a false document(Will); .(g) that she is an uneducated lady and would not go out of her house even her mother was alive and that only her mother used to attend all functions and was taking care of herself; .(h) that she was little aware of the world around her, which was the main reason for her being a spinster, .(i) that the petitioner in the main O.P., brought some rowdy elements and started claiming the property on the basis of a Will, but the said Will was not shown to her; .(j) that the petitioner in the main O.P., also gave a false complaint against her and tortured her to run away from the property; .(k) that the petitioner in the main O.P., obtained Probate without impleading her, the only legal heir of O.V. Parthasarathy and Lakshmi Ammal and that O.V., Parthasarathy and Lakshmi Ammal had no other issues except herself; .(l) that she did not know the petitioner in the main of O.P., to be the relative of her lather and mother; .(m) that she must have been made a party to the proceedings and that Probate was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and that the petitioner in the main O.P., did not prove her to be the daughter of Lakshmi Ammal: and .(n) that her mother did not write any Will till her death and that since there are triable issues, the Probate granted should be revoked. 14. I have extracted the averments of the rival claimant Papayammal in the affidavit originally sworn to by her on 27.02.2008 in support of A.No.2402 of 2008, since they are at variance with the averments contained in the affidavit sworn to on 17.03.2008, which replaced the first affidavit. 14. I have extracted the averments of the rival claimant Papayammal in the affidavit originally sworn to by her on 27.02.2008 in support of A.No.2402 of 2008, since they are at variance with the averments contained in the affidavit sworn to on 17.03.2008, which replaced the first affidavit. Under normal circumstances, when the first affidavit and the Judge’s summons originally filed on 28.02.2008, were returned on 11.03.2008 for rectification of certain defects, the rival claimant ought to have represented the application along with the same affidavit, if necessary with the corrections thought fit and a clean copy. But in this case, the first affidavit sworn to on 27.02.2008, has been replaced by a fresh affidavit sworn to on 17.03.2008. But the rival claimant has forgotten the feet that a copy of the first affidavit and judge’s summons had already been served on Mr. M. arvind Subramaniam,learned counsel for the petitioner in the main O.P., on 27.02.2008 itself and that a copy of the first affidavit was therefore available with him. It has become necessary for me to take note of this fact, since the name of Mr. Vijaya Baskar against whom a criminal complaint of abduction, assault and theft of documents had been made and who was admittedly detained under the Goondas Act, is admitted by Papayammal in her first affidavit to be her relative. But in the improved version filed on 17.03.2008, this facts has been burked, obviously on better legal advices, after change of counsel. 15. In view of the fact that the fresh affidavit dated 17.03.2008 was also served on the counsel for the petitioner in the main O.P., the petitioner in the main O.P., Dr.Chandrika Ayyar, filed 2 counter affidavits, one of the first affidavit sworn to on 27.02.2008 and another to the affidavit sworn to on the averments contained in these counter affidavits of Dr. Chandrika Ayyar run as follows:- .(a) that P. Papayammal was a stranger to the family and that her parents O.V. Parthasarathy and S.v. Lakshmi Ammal were Tamil Brahmins, while Papayammal seems to be a Telugu person as her name suggests; .(b) that her after father O.V. Parthasarathy was a Post Graduate and her mother S.V. Lakshmi Ammal was a Marticulate; .(c) that her father O.V. Parthasarathy worked as Secretary in various Govermental Organisations and under Englishmen of ICS cadre and that this falsifies the claim of Papayammal that he left his daughter uneducated; .(d) that she (Dr. Chandrika ayyar) is a Post Graduate in Arts and was conferred Ph.D., from Jadhavpur University, Calcutta; .(e) that no documents were field by Papayamal to show that she is the daughter of O.V. .Parthasarathy and S.V. Lakshmi Ammal; .(f) that in their bail application Crl.M.P.No.5285 of 2007, Papayammal claimed that Vijaya Basar ws her grandson through her sister; .(g) that in her bail application, Papayammal further claimed that the petitioner Chandrika Ayyar was the daughter of O.V. Parthasarathy, born to his concubine kamatchiammal, through it is stated in the affidavit in support of A.No.2402 of 2008 that Chandrika is a stranger to the family; .(h) that she was the only legal heir of O.V. Parthasarathy and S.V.Lakshmi Ammal, having been born on 23.09.1944 in their own house at No.30/21, Arcot Street T. Nagar, Chennai-17; .(i) that from her birth, she ws residing in the T.Nagar property which could be substantiated by the neighbours and the Secondary School Leaving Certificate; .(j) that after the death of her mother Lakshmi Ammal on 212. 2005, she performed the funeral rites and she has also been performing the annual ceremonies of her parents through a religious organization at Adyar, .(k) that the averments contained in the affidavit of Papayammal, are collected from the nurse who attended on the petitioner’s mother and also from the documents taken away by Vijaya Baskar from her house; .(l) that the petitioner had given a paper publication in The Hindu dated 24.06.2007 about the theft of the documents and had also made another publication in The Hindu dated 010. 2007 in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, about the loss of the original Will and the pendency of the O.P.; .(m) that Papayammal did not respond to either of these paper publications, though she approached the builder with whom the petitioner had entered into negotiations, claiming to be in possession of the original documents relating to the property; .(n) that she also made the builder to part with a substantial amount, on the basis of such claims; .(o) That the property was purchased by the mother under a sale deed dated 23.08.1940 and the petitioner leaved with her mother in that house till she attained the age of 10 years; .(p) That from 1954, she and her mother joined the father and started residing along with the father at P.86, sardhar shankar road, off Rashbehari Avenue, Calcutta 700 029; .(q) That she did her schooling St. Andrew’s school, Tollygunj, Calcutta and M.A., in 1956 from jadhavpur university, Calcutta and that she was conferred with ph.D., in 1984 by the same university; .(r) That all original records of the education qualifications were also stolen by VijayaBaskar, but the Xerox copies are available; .(s) That after the father’s death on 15.02.1986, the mother decide to shift to Chennai in 1987 and both of them lived with their relatives at No.35/26(New No. 10), thanickachalam road, T.Nagar, Cheannai-17; .(t) That both of them started residing in the T.Nagar house from 1996,as it had been jet out to tenants till then .(u) That her mother became ill in November 2005 and was hospitalized in Isabel Hospital, Chennai-4; .(v) That after her mother’s discharge from the hospital, she engaged the services of Sree Nursing Care run by Vijaya Baskar and his wife Sreetripura alias Ratnasangeetha, to take care of the mother; .(w) That as per the arrangement that she had with them, they had to provide two nurses for a period of one month in turn system and that both the nurses got to know all the family details including the feet that the petitioner and her mother were living by .themselves; .(x) That her mother died on 212. 2005 and about two weeks before her mother’s demise, she discontinued the Nursing Service and that on 6. 2005 and about two weeks before her mother’s demise, she discontinued the Nursing Service and that on 6. 2007, when she was alone, the said Vijiaya Basker had visited her under the pretext of enquiring about her health and asked for a glass of water and that when she was pouring water into the glass, she was hit with a heavy object on the head and she became unconscious .(y) That Vijaya Baskar Kidnapped her and illegally detained her till 6. 2007 and assaulted her resulting in grievous injuries on her head; .(z) that she was let off on the night of 06.06.2007 and with the help of her relatives, she went to her house, the next day and she found that the original documents including the registered will of her mother dated 21.05.1998, tax demand cards, bank pass book and cheque books, letters, photo albums, original education qualification certificates and death certificate of her father issued in Calcutta, were stolen form the almirah of the house; (aa) that on 20.06.2007, she gave a complaint of the commissioner of police, Chennai against the said Vijaya Baskar and that her niece J.Vidya(cousin’s daughter) had also given a complaint dated 02.06.2007 to the inspector of police, Mambalam police station on which FIR NO. 481 of 2007 was registered regarding here disappearance from the house and that after thorough investigation, the police had arrested both the said Vijaya Baskar and Papayammal in Crime No. 481 of 2007 on 6. 2007; (ab) that though Papayammal and Vijaya Baskar were released on bail on their petition in Crl.MfP. No.5285 of 2007 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, Vijaya Baskar was subsequently arrested and detained under Goondas Act which was also published in some Tamil Dailies; (ac) that in the bail petition, Papayammal had stated that their documents were taken away by the local police, but she had claimed in the affidavit to be in possession of the original documents; (ad) that there are glaring contradictions between the statement made in the bail petition, the averments contained in the first affidavit sworn to on 27.02.2008 and the present affidavit sworn to on 17.03.2008 in support of the revocation application A. No.2402 of 2008; and (ae) that in the above circumstances, there is no just cause, within the meaning of Section 263 to revoke the Probate. 16. In addition to the elaborate counter affidavit, Dr. 16. In addition to the elaborate counter affidavit, Dr. Chandrika Ayyar has also tiled the following supplemental affidavits:- .(i) A supplemental affidavit enclosing the supporting affidavit of PW.2 S.Jagannathan, as Annexure-I, testifying to her lineage, a Certificate issued by Dr. K.Nagappan, Orthopaedic Surgeon, a neighbour, as Annexure-II, testifying to her lineage and residence, along with a photo of Chandrika Ayyar and a supporting affidavit of Dr.S.R.Niranjan, as Annexure-III, to the effect he was the finally physician of S.V. lakshmi ammal and her daughter Chandhrika Ayyar. .(ii) A supplemental affidavit enclosing a copy of her birth certificate issued by the corporation of Chennai on 09.07.2008, as annexure-I, a certificate is issued by bank of India, Thyagaraya Nagar Branch, to show that Lakshmi Ammal and Chandhrika Ayyar had opened a joint saving bank account No.9778 on 19.06.1986 and that after demise of lakshmi ammal the account continues in name of chandhrika ayyar, as annexure –II and the first page of the savigs bank pass Book Account bearing No.418530296 issued by Indian Bank, T.Nagar Branch, jointly in the names of Lakshmi Ammal and Chandrika Ayyar; and (iii) An additional supplemental affidavit giving a family tree both on the paternal side and maternal side; 17. Since one of the supplemental affidavits was filed after orders were reserved in the applications, the case was reopened and the rival claimant papayammal filed on 10.07.2008. therafter, orders were reserved. But papayammal has not chosen to file a reply to the counter affidavit filed by Chandrika Ayyar on 16.06.2008 to the Application A. No.2402 of 2008. 18. Both sides have filed certain documents. The rival claimant papayammal has filed (i) a marriage photo of O.V. Parthasarathy and S.V. lakshmi Ammal (ii) a birth certificate issued by the kolkata municipal Corporation, shoeing the name of papayammal with date of birth as 012. 1945 and the name of the father as Parsadi Belder O.V. alias O.V. parthasarathy and the name of the mother as lakshmi S.V. (iii)the legal heirship certificate issued by Tahsildar, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk to the effect that P.Papayam Ammal alias Ms.Ayyar was the sole legal heir of S.V. Lakshmi ammal who died on 212. 2005 and (iv) the copy of the order dated 012. 2007 passed in HCP NO. 1295 of 2007, quashing the preventive detention of Vijaya Baskar on the sole ground that there was considerable delay in considering the representation of the detenu. 19. 2005 and (iv) the copy of the order dated 012. 2007 passed in HCP NO. 1295 of 2007, quashing the preventive detention of Vijaya Baskar on the sole ground that there was considerable delay in considering the representation of the detenu. 19. The petitioner Dr.Chandrika Ayyar has filed (i) a model of the birth certificate issued by the Corporation of Calcutta to establish mat the one produced by Papayammal is fabricated (ii) two specimen copies of the birth certificates issued by corporation of Chennai and (iii) the retuned postal covers sent to Papayammal and Vijaya baskar at the address given by them in Anna Nagar. 20. On the basis of the pleadings and the documents adduced on either side, the question that arises for consideration in A. No. 2402 of 2008 is as to whether P.Papayammal has made out a “just cause” with in the meaning of section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for revocation of the Probate granted in iavour of Dr.Ms.Chandrika Ayyar in O.P no. 734 of 2007. Once this issue is decided, the issues raised in the other two applications a. Nos. 2537 and 2645 of 2008 can easily be decided. There, let me now take up the question as to whether Papayammal has made out just cause for revocation of the probate. 21. The rival claimant papayammal has come up with the application seeking revocation of probate primarily on two grounds viz., .(i) That she is the real and only daughter of O.V. Parthasarathy and s.V. Lakshmi Ammal (Testatrix), but no citation was issued to her and .(ii) That Lakshmi Ammal never executed any will, as there was no necessity for her to do so. Out of these two grounds, if her claim that she is the real and only daughter of the couple is actually true, then certainly the non-issue of citation to her, would amount to just cause. The second ground as whether the testatrix executed the will in question are not and the supplemental question as to whether the Will is valid and genuine or not, can be decided after converting the probate proceeding in to a testamentary original suit, if papayammal on the first ground that she is the real and only daughter of the couple. The second ground as whether the testatrix executed the will in question are not and the supplemental question as to whether the Will is valid and genuine or not, can be decided after converting the probate proceeding in to a testamentary original suit, if papayammal on the first ground that she is the real and only daughter of the couple. Therefore, what is actually to be decided now is as to whether papayammal is the real and only daughter of O.V. Parthasarathi and S.V. Lakshmi Ammal. I do not expect the highest decree of proof from Papayammal to show that she is the real and only daughter. Even is papayammal able to create a semblance of an impression in my mind that she could the real and only daughter, I am prepared to revoke the probate and allow things, including this question, to be fully and finally determined after trial in the Testamentary Suit. Therefore, the approach that I propose to adopt, while scanning the pleadings and the documents, is to see if papayammal has succeeded in creating such an impression that she could be the real and only daughter of that couple. 22. As stated earlier, Papayammal has filed the following documents to show that she is the real and only daughter of the Testatrix:- .(i) The marriage photo of O.V. Parthasarathy and S.V.Lakshmi Ammal, .(ii) The Birth certificate issued by the Kolkatta Municipal Corporation, (iii) The legal heirship Certificate issued by Tahsildar Mambalam-guindy taluk and (iv) The order dated 012. 2007 passed in HCP No. 1295 of 2007. 23. Document No. 1, namely the marriage photo, even if it be that of O.V.parthasarathy and S.V. lakshmi Ammal, has no bearing on the issue. The marriage photograph of a couple. Therefore document No.1 is of no consequence. 24. Document No.2 is the birth Certificate issued in Form-5, by The Kolkatta Municipal Corporation. It contains the following details:- TABLE 25. But the above Certificate does not contain certain essential particular such as the division number of the local area, the permanent residential address of the parents and the address of the parents at the time of birth of the child. The name of the father is indicated as Parsadi Belder. O.V. alias O.V. Parthasarathy, for which there is no explanation. Even if these defects are condoned, there is something more serious. The name of the father is indicated as Parsadi Belder. O.V. alias O.V. Parthasarathy, for which there is no explanation. Even if these defects are condoned, there is something more serious. The certificate is actually supposed to be a certificate to extract from the Birth Register. Therefore, the certificate should only contain those detail available in the Register, in exactly the same manner in which they are written. In the other words, the certificate is supposed to contain a reproduction of the details, as they are available in the Register without any correction. But it is seen in the column relating to place of birth, that the name of the city is indicated to be “KOL”. In the year 1945, the name of the city could not have been written as “Kolkatta”, so as to enable the extract form the Birth Register to indicate the same. This create suspicion about the genuineness of the certificate. 26. In a normal case, I would not have been emboldened to throw this birth certificate out, as not genuine one, without a further probe or without asking the parties to go for trial. But in this case, it seems to be unnecessary in view of certain facts admitted by papayammal her self. The facts that are either admitted or not disputed by papayammal are follows:- .(a) papayammal admits to be a completely uneducated person, though she claims to be the real daughter of an educated south Indian Tamil Brahmin couple, who had settled in Calcutta in pre-independence days. (b) The averment made by Dr.Chandrika Ayyar in her counter affidavit that O.V.parthasarathy was a post Graduate and S.V. Lakshmi Ammal was a matriculate, is not disputed by papayammal by the way of any reply. The averment that O.V.parthasarathy was worked as secretary in various governmental Organisations and under Englishmen of I.C.S. cadre is also not dend by papayammal by way of a 22 reply. Therefore the admission made by papayammal in the first affidavit filed by her (sworn to on 27.02.208) that she is an uneducated lady and that she was always in the habit of being in house only, stares at educated claim that she is a daughter the well educated couple. Therefore the admission made by papayammal in the first affidavit filed by her (sworn to on 27.02.208) that she is an uneducated lady and that she was always in the habit of being in house only, stares at educated claim that she is a daughter the well educated couple. Interestingly this admission of papayammal is not found in the affidavit sworn to on 17.03.2008, and there is no explanation as to why the first affidavit which was returned along with the Judge’s summons on 11.03.2008, was not re-presented but was replaced by a fresh one containing selective averments. .(c) In the first affidavit sworn to on 27.02.2008 (which was not re-presented thereafter), papayammal has admitted to be related to Vijaya Baskar. But in the fresh affidavit on 17.03.2008, while representing the application, there no reference to Vijaya Baskar at all. The fact that Vijaya Baskar was accused, in Crime No.481 of 2007 on the file of R-1, Mambalam police station, 1 or varies offence including the offence of kidnapping and wrong full confinement of Dr.Chandrika Ayyar, forgery, cheating, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation and theft, is not disputed. The fact that he was detained under tamil nadu Act 14 of 1982 is also disputed. Therefore the deletion of the information relating to her relation ship with Vijaya Baskar in the newly sworn to affidavit, despite mentioning about it in the first affidavit, assumes significance and it amounts to willful suppression of material particular on the part of papayammal. .(d) In the first affidavit sworn to on 27.02.2008, papayammal stated in paragraph-6 as follows:- In paragraph-6 of the affidavit sworn to on 17.03.2008,papayammal claimed that Chandrika Ayyar is a stranger to her mother and to her self and that she is not connected at all in any way. But in the bail application filed before the principal City Civil Court Chennai in Cr l. M.P.No. 5285 of 2007 it was claimed by vijaya baskar and papayammal that chandrika ayyar is the daughter of o.v. kamatchiammal. After having made having made such a claim in the bail application in 2007, there is no reason as to why this feet is also suppressed in the affidavit in support of the application for revocation. Therefore I am unable to provide an opportunity to papayammal to go for trial solely on the basis of the basis of the birth certificate filed as document No.2. .27. Therefore I am unable to provide an opportunity to papayammal to go for trial solely on the basis of the basis of the birth certificate filed as document No.2. .27. Document No.3. is the legal heirship certificate issued by the tahsildar, showing .papayammal to be the sole legal heir of S.V. Lakshmi Ammal. Interestingly, this is the papayammal is mentioned as “papayammal alias miss.Ayyar”. The credibility of this document stands exposed from certain shocking facts revealed in the grounds of detention of vijaya baskar. Therefore, I shall deal with the legal heirship certificate (document no. 3) along with the order passed in HCP No. 1295 of 2007 filed as document no. 4. .28. Document No. 4 shows that detention of vijaya baskar under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 passed on 25.07.2007. was set aside by the Division Bench of this court on 012. 2007, only for one reason viz., that there was considerable delay in considering the representation against detention. Paragraph-7 of the order of the Division Bench reads as follows:- .“In the instant case, the impugned order of detention came to be passed on 25.07.2007. A representation was made to the government on 02.08.2007 and the same was received by it on 03.08.2007. Remarks were called from the detaining authority on 06.08.2007, which was received by the detaining authority on 06.08.2007. parawar remarks was called for from the sponsoring. Authority on 07.08.2007 and the same was received on 13.08.2007, after a delay of four days excluding two public holydays the report was sent to the government on 14.08.2007 and the same was received by it in 14.08.2007. The file was considered by the under secretary and the additional secretary on 17.08.2007 and Hon’ble minister on 20.08.2007. The rejection order was prepared on 20.08.2007. The delay in Considering the representation, as indicated above, was high lighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no convincing reply on behalf of the State for the said delay. We find some force as well as substance in this contention and there is no explanation for the delay.” 29. It is clear from a perusal of the order passed in the Habeas Corpus Petition that the preventive detention of Vijaya Baskar was quashed only on a technical ground. But Papayammal has filed the order as a document, as though it is a Certificate of good conduct issued to Vijaya Baskar. It is clear from a perusal of the order passed in the Habeas Corpus Petition that the preventive detention of Vijaya Baskar was quashed only on a technical ground. But Papayammal has filed the order as a document, as though it is a Certificate of good conduct issued to Vijaya Baskar. Papayammal and Vijaya Basker area still facing prosecution for various alleged Offences and the quashing of the order of detention cannot advance the case of Papayammal. 30. As a matter of fact, since Papayammal filed the order passed in the HCP as document No.4, I summoned the records relating to the HCP available from the Records Room. The order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, states the grounds of detention as under- “3. The ground on which the said detention has been made is as follows:- Dr. Chandrika Iyer, female, aged 62, D/o. Parthasarathy is residing at No.30/21, Arcot Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. Dr. chandrika Iyer’s father died during the year 1986. Dr. Chandrika Iyer’s mother Tmt. Lakshmi Ammal who was living separately at Chennai purchased the above house at No. 30/21, Arcot Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17, and her sisters who were living in Chennai died and subsequently during the year 1995, Tmt. Lakshmi Ammal also fell ill and Dr. Chandrika Iyer who was working as a teacher at Kolkatta left her job and shifted to Chennai and was living with her ailing mother Tmt. Lakshmi Ammal. During the month of October 2005, Tmt. Lakshmi Ammal was admitted at Isabella Hospital anad Smt.Thiripura @ Rathna Sangeetha who was running a Nursing Care got acquaintance with Dr. Chandrika Iyer and sent a Nurse to Dr. Chandrika Iyer’s house to look after her ailing mother Tmt. Lakshmi Ammal. The said nurse worked at Dr. Chandrika Iyer’s house for 15 days and during the said period the nurse’s husband Thiru. Vijaya Baskar used to visit her. Later TrntXakshmi Ammal died. On 01.06.2007 at about 5.30 p.m., while Dr. Chandrika Iyer was alone at her house, Thiru Vijaya Baskar along with one Chandrasekaran came to her house and knocked at the door. Dr. Chandrika Iyer opened the house and they demanded water to drink. When Dr. Chandrika Iyer went inside the house, she fell down on the ground and became unconscious. When the regained consciousness she found that she was traveling in a car. Dr. Chandrika Iyer opened the house and they demanded water to drink. When Dr. Chandrika Iyer went inside the house, she fell down on the ground and became unconscious. When the regained consciousness she found that she was traveling in a car. She asked water the Thiru Vijaya Baskar served the same. Late Thiru Vijaya Baskar took her to his house and gave treatment and also served food. L Those who were in the said house prevented Dr. Chandrika Iyer from going away. Dr. Chandrika Iyer used to ask those who were serving food to take her to her house. When Dr. Chandrika Iyer requested the reason of keeping her in custody, Thiru Vijaya Baskar threatened her by saying, -------Tamil-------- At the same time, Selvi T. Vidhya, who is the daughter of Dr. Chandrika Iyer’s sister visited Dr. chandrika Iyer’s house and found the newspaper kept in the veranda of the house and the veranda not cleaned and found the house locked and found her aunt missing and she informed about the missing of the aunt to her relatives and lodged a complaint in this regard. Tmt. M. Bakkiamma, Sub Inspector of Police, Law and Order, R-1 Mambalam Police Station Registered a case in R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.481 of 2007 under Section Woman Missing. Thiru K. Chandrasekaran, Inspector of Police, Law and Order, R-1 Mambalam Police Station took up the investigation of the case and was searching for the missing Dr. Chandrika Iyer. At the same time Thiru Vijaya Baskar who committed theft of original death certificate of Dr. Chandrika Iyer’s father Thiru Parthasarathy and mother Tmt. Lakshmi Ammal and applied from legal heir cerficate a if Thiru Vijaya Baskar’s aunt Tmt. Pappayammal @ Miss Iyer, aged 62 as Dr. Chandrika Iyer by getting a notary certificate from one A.R. Anand, M.L., advocate, by giving false information. By giving false information, he collected the legal heir certificate as if the certificate was required for change of property, for payment of tax, for change of electricity connection, for payment of water tax and corporation tax. As the next step, Thiru Vijaya Baskar applied for change of property in Tmt. Pappayammal’s name who is none other than his aunt. The survey officials came to the said property situated at No.30/21, Arcot Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17, and were measuring the land for issue of patta in the name of Tmt. Pappayammal. As the next step, Thiru Vijaya Baskar applied for change of property in Tmt. Pappayammal’s name who is none other than his aunt. The survey officials came to the said property situated at No.30/21, Arcot Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-17, and were measuring the land for issue of patta in the name of Tmt. Pappayammal. The neighbours who witnessed the measuring of the land by the survey officials informed that the said Dr. Chandrika Iyer who is the original owner of the property is missing and R-1 Mambalam Police also registered a case and were searching for the said Dr. Chandrika Iyer and asked the survey official to approach the R-1 Mambalam Police and the survey official proceeded to the R-1 Mambalam Police Station and informed about the fact of issuing of legal heir certification and applying for issue of patta in the name of Tmt. Pappayammal. At the same time, Thiru Vijaya Baskar came to know about the action of the police and dropped Dr. Chandrika Iyer at Jagadeeswaran Street on 06.06.2007 at 6.30 p.m., and threatened Dr. Chandrika Iyer by saying ----------Tamil---------- and Dr. Chandrika Iyer feared danger and proceeded to her relative Thiru Jagananathan’s house and along with Selvi Vidhya came to her house and found the original death certificate of her parents and the original land documents missing and later both appeared before the Inspector of Police, R-1 Mambalam Police Station and Dr. Chandrika Iyer gave a statement about the happening. The detailed investigation reveals that Thiru Vijaya Baskar along with one Chandrasekaran came to know of Dr. Chandrika Iyer who had no issue or relatives and they decided that they could easily grab her property. Since Tv1. Vijaya Baskar and Chandrasekaran have acquaintance with Dr. Chandrika Iyer, they went to her house and kidnapped her with the intention to acquire the house and vacant land belonging to Dr. Chandrika layer and planned and committed theft of original death certificate of Thiru Parthasarathy and Tmt. Lakshmi Ammal and posing that Thiru Vijaya Baskar’s aunt Tmt. Pappayammal as the legal heir filed an application before the revenue officials and by filing a false heir certificate as if Tmt. Pappayammal is the legal heir filed an application before the revenue official and by filing a false affidavit attested by a Notary Public and Commissioner of Oaths, obtained the legal heir certificate as if Tmt. Pappayammal as the legal heir filed an application before the revenue officials and by filing a false heir certificate as if Tmt. Pappayammal is the legal heir filed an application before the revenue official and by filing a false affidavit attested by a Notary Public and Commissioner of Oaths, obtained the legal heir certificate as if Tmt. Pappayammal is the legal heir of Tmt. Lakshmi Amml and Thiru Parthasarathy, Later they applied for change of property in the name of Tmt. Pappayammal which is under process, During the course of investigation; the inspector of Police arrested Thiru Vijaya Baskar on 06.06.2007 at 22.00 hours in front of Pothy’s shop at Usman Road, T. Nagar, and he was produced before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, and was lodged at Central Prison, Chennai, under judicial custody as remand prisoner till 21.06.2007. The inspector of Police filed an affidavit before the learned Magistrate requesting to grant police custody of Thiru Vijaya Baskar. The learned Magistrate requesting to grant police custody of above accused for 5 days and during the police custody period, the Inspector or Police examined Thiru Vijaya Baskar and recorefed his confession statement. Later he was surrendered before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, and was lodged at central prison, Chennai, as remand prisoner till 18.06.2007. His remand was further extended periodically till 05.07.2007. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police altered the Sections of law as 365,343,386,468,452,380,307,120(b) and 506(2)IPC and the investigation of the case is not yet over. The Offences under Section 120(b), 343, 365,380,386,452,468,307 and 506(2) IPC relate to criminal conspiracy, confinement above four days, kidnapping, committing theft, intention of grabbing the property, intention of committing offence, forgery for purpose of cheating, attempt to murder and criminal intimidation as such punishable under Chapter 17 of the Code. Investigation reveals that Tvl. Vijaya Baskar and Chandrasekaran along with Smt. Thiripura @ Rathna Sangeetha hatched a criminal conspiracy to grab the property of Dr. Chandrika Iyer and in pursuance of the above criminal conspiracy Tvl. Vijaya Baskar and Chandrasekaran went to the house of Dr. Chandrika Iyer and committed theft of original documents of the land parents’ death certificate from the bureau and kidnapped her and by keeping her in their custody with the intention to grab the land by posing Tmt. Chandrika Iyer and in pursuance of the above criminal conspiracy Tvl. Vijaya Baskar and Chandrasekaran went to the house of Dr. Chandrika Iyer and committed theft of original documents of the land parents’ death certificate from the bureau and kidnapped her and by keeping her in their custody with the intention to grab the land by posing Tmt. Pappayammal as the original legal heir of Tmt.Lakshmi Ammal and Thiru Parthasarathy and collected the legal heir certificate and also applied for change of name in the patta and thus attempted to possess the property in his aunt’s name illegally.” .31. The modus operandi of Vijaya Baskar and his accomplice Papayammal, the nature of the offences alleged against them and the motive behind the alleged acts, provided in graphic detail in the order of detention, tallies exactly, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for Dr. Chandrika Ayyar, ought to have impleaded Papayammal or issued citation to her. It is too much to expect every applicant in Probate proceedings, to implead or issue citation to impersonators. As a matter of fact, in many cases, it is not the intention of such persons to get the Probate proceedings converted into a Testamentary Suit and have it decided after a full trial. The very revocation of the Probate granted, would provide a legitimacy to their claim and would improve their bargaining power, given the fact that the person lighting them is already a senior citizen with no legal heir and in the evening of his or her life. With such a trend emerging in disputes relating to prime properties owned by elederly people with no legal heirs, it is the duty of the Probate Court, in my humble view, to sift the chaff from the grain. Therefore, I hold that Papayamml has failed miserably to create even a semblance of an impression in my mind that she could possibly be the real and only daughter of O.V.Parthasarthy and S.V.Lakshmi Animal, in the background of the heinous crimes alleged against them. Today, it is possible for anyone to claim that L”I am that” (not in the philosophical sense but in the physiological sense), like the Devas who impersonated the mythological King Nala in an attempt to marry Damayanthi. Today, it is possible for anyone to claim that L”I am that” (not in the philosophical sense but in the physiological sense), like the Devas who impersonated the mythological King Nala in an attempt to marry Damayanthi. Such claims can certainly be tested, should necessarily be tested, in the background of facts, without crossing the boundaries that would affect a fair trial in the criminal case. If this is done, without affecting the chances of a fair trail to the accuse3d, it will subserve ends of justice on both sides. But if this is not done, the question left open or at least kept pending by the Civil Court, would provide a royal gate way for the person accused, to walk out as a free mann. L It is only for this reason and nothing more that I have referred to the grounds of detention of Vijaya Baskar, just for the purpose of testing the veracity of the claim of Papayammal that she is the real daughter. .32. Thus all the four documents, the basis of which Papayammal has made a claim to be the real daughter of O.V. Parthasarathy and S.V.Lakshmi Ammal, lack credibility. On the basis of these documents, it is not possible for me to hold that Dr. Chandrika Ayyar ought to have impleaded Papayammal or issued citation to her. It is too much to expect every applicant in Probate proceedings, to implead or issue citation to impersonators. As a matter of fact, in many cases, it is not the intention of such persons to get the Probate proceedings converted into a Testamentary Suit and have it decided after a full trial. The very revocation of the Probate granted, would provide a legitimacy to their claim and would improve their bargaining power, given the fact that the person lighting them is already a senior citizen with no legal heir and in the evening of his or her life. With such a trend emerging in disputes relating to prime properties owned by elderly people with no legal heirs, it is the duty of the Probate Court, in my humble view, to sift the chaff from the grain. Therefore, I hold that Papayammal has failed miserably to create even a semblance of an impression in my mind that she could possibly be the real and only daughter of O.V. Parthasarathy and S.V.Lakshmi Animal. Therefore, I hold that Papayammal has failed miserably to create even a semblance of an impression in my mind that she could possibly be the real and only daughter of O.V. Parthasarathy and S.V.Lakshmi Animal. If she had created such an impression, even remotely, then the Probate already granted could have been revoked and the proceedings converted into a Testamentary Originals Suit. But she has failed to do so. 33. The learned senior counsel for Dr. Chandrika Ayya offered a typed set, containing the following documents:- .(i) Sale Deed (Doc.No.1896 of 1940) .(ii) Rectification Deed (Doc.No.1960 of 1940) (iii) Certificate of the Board of Secondary Education West Bengal .(iv) B.A. Degree Certificate .(v) M.A. Degree Certificate .(vi) Certified copy of Registered Will of S.V.Lakshmi Ammal Doc.No.53 of 1988) (vii) Complaint and FIR (viii) Complaint from J.Vidya .(ix) Complaint of respondent/petitioner .(x) Petition for bail – Crl. M.P. No.5285 of 2007 .(xi) Order in Crl. M.P. No.5285 of 2007 (xii) Publication in “The Hindu” (xui) Death Certificate of S.V.Lakshmi Ammal (xiv) News paper Report in “Dina Thanthi” (xv) News paper Report in “Dina Malar” (xvi) News paper Report in “Dinakaran” (xvii) Agreement to Sell executed by Chandrika Ayyar (xviii) Name Board fixed (xix) Publication in “The Hindu” (xx) Irrevocable Power of Attorney executed by Chandrika Ayyar (xxi) Affidavit of S. Jagannathan (xxii) Certificate of Dr. K. Nagappan (xxiii) Affidavit of Dr. S.R.Niranjan (xxiv) Affidavit of K.S. Saravanan (xxv) Pan Card of petitioner 34. Making a reference to the these documents, Mr. T.R. Mani, learned senior counsel appearing for Papayammal conteded as follows:- .(a) If Dr. Chandrika Ayyar was the only daughter, there was noneed to execute a Will and there was certainly no need to appoint her as Executrix under the Will. This creates a suspicion about the Will. .(b) The original Will is not produced. .(c) The advertisement regarding the documents lost, (foes not refer to the Will, creating a suspicion as to why the original Will is not produced .(d) The affidavit of Jagannathan, PW.2, does not satisfy the requirements of law for establishing a Will. .(e) The value of the property is mentioned in the Probate proceedings to be Rs.2,20,00,000/-. But the agreement of sale entered into by Dr. Chandrika Ayyar with Venus Constructions show a sale consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/-. .(e) The value of the property is mentioned in the Probate proceedings to be Rs.2,20,00,000/-. But the agreement of sale entered into by Dr. Chandrika Ayyar with Venus Constructions show a sale consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/-. The agreement also shows that the purchaser agreed to pay Rs.25,00,00/- to the counsel for defraying the legal and incidental expenses in connection with the Probate proceedings. 35. After highlighting the above factual aspects and contending that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will in respect of which Probate was sought for, Mr. T.R. Mani, learned senior counsel contended- .(a) that an order granting Probate is an order in rem and hence the slightest doubt is enough to revoke it; .(b) that even at the time of institution of the Probate proceedings the rival claim made by Papayammal was known to Dr. Chandrika Ayyar and yet she deliberately failed to implead her as a party and that this vitiated her application for Probate; .(c) that the Agreement of Sale between, Dr. Chandrika Ayyar and the builder, is a champertous agreement in view of the tact that the purchaser had agree to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the counsel for defraying the legal and incidental expenses for the Probate proceedings; .(d) that in the order granting Probate, exhibits P-3 and P-4 are referred to as paper publications regarding the filing of the petition for Probate, but Exhibit P-3 is not regarding Probate proceedings; .(e) That Papayammal has filed her birth Certificate showing her name and the name of her parents, but the birth Certificte filed by Dr. Chandrika Ayyar, after orders were reserved in the application, shows the name of the child to be “Janaki”; (f) that Dr. Chandrika Ayyar has not produced the legal heirship Certificate, but Papayammal has produced one; and .(g) that the S.S.L.C. Certificate produced by Dr. Chandrika Ayyar could at the most establish the paternity of O..Parthasarathy but not the maternity of S.V. Lakshmi Ammal to Chandrika Ayyar. 36. The above contentions remind me of what Athi Veera Rama Pandia, a King and Poet of the 12 Century said about truth and falsehood. The poem goes as follows ---------- Tamil --------- It is but a cruel reality of the day, as Mark Twain said that before truth could even commence its journey, falsity has the capacity to complete its sojourn. 37. The poem goes as follows ---------- Tamil --------- It is but a cruel reality of the day, as Mark Twain said that before truth could even commence its journey, falsity has the capacity to complete its sojourn. 37. At the outset, all the above contentions would lie in the mouth of only a person who has some semblance of a connection with the Testatrix or somje semblance of a right over the property. S stated earlier, the rival claimant Papayammal has come up with the application for revocation of the Probate on the ground that she is the real and only daughter to her parents and the Dr. Chandrika Ayyar is a stranger to the inamiry. But the arguments go on the basis that Papayammal is the real and only daughter of S.V. Lakshmi Ammal, the Testatrix and the Dr. Chandrika Ayyar was born to the common father O.V. Parthasarathy, through his concubine kamatchiammal. (the change of version in the course of arguments, coupled with the association of papayammal with Vijaya Baskar and the suppression of several fact in the affidavit in support of the application for the revocation, falsifies the claim of papayammal that she is the real only and only daughter of the testatrix. Unless a person seeking revocation of probate establishes his/her credentials, the probate court is not bound to revoke the probate merely on the basis of suspicious circumstance alleged by such person. In the first instance, he/she should establish the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. Papayammal could not even cross the first barrier in establishing her relation ship her locus and her right to seek revocation. All the four documents relied upon by her, are of no value, in establishing her to be the real and only daughter of O.V. parthasarathy and S.V. Lakshmi Ammal. Only if the papayammal had succeeded in that least creating a doubt that she could possibly be of the suspicious circumstances, would be of any value. However I shall consider those contentions on merits one after another. 38. The first question raised by learned senior counsel for papayammal is as to why Lakshmi Ammal should execute a will at all if she had only one daughter and as to why an Executrix should be appointed. But in my considered view, the question as to why the Testatrix did what she did, is of no relevance today. 38. The first question raised by learned senior counsel for papayammal is as to why Lakshmi Ammal should execute a will at all if she had only one daughter and as to why an Executrix should be appointed. But in my considered view, the question as to why the Testatrix did what she did, is of no relevance today. It is seen from ExhibitP-1, the certified copy of the will that it was execute way back on 25. 1988. It was presented for registration in the oflsce of the sub Registrar of Theagaraya Nagar on 16. 988, by the Testatrix herself. It was registered as document No.53 of 1988 in Book-3, Vol.55. paged 67 and 68.it is attested by one K.s. Narayanan, an advocate and one K.R. Venkateswaran. In the office of the sub Registrar, the Testatrix was identified by K.R. Venkateswaran and S. Raju, both residents of T. Nagar. The will gives the address of S.V. Lakshmi Ammal as no.35, Thanickachalam Road, T. Nagar. The will gives the address of S.V. Lakshmi Ammal as No.35, Thanickachalam Road, T. Nagar, Madras-17 and it refers to the sale Deed dated 28. 1940 and the rectification Deed dated 38. 1940 by which she purchased the property. The will also refers to the death of the husband of the Testatrix O.V. Parthasarathy on 12. 1986 and to the fact that Chandrika Ayyar was a spinster. It is true the as the only daughter to the Testatrix, Chandrika Ayyar could have succeeded to the property even by way of intestate succession. But that by itself does not create a suspicion about the execution of the will. As admitted by both sides, the property was purchased in the name of Lakshmi Ammal in the year 1940, before the advent of the Hindu succession Act, 1955. Therefore, the Testatrix might have entertained unnecessary doubts and become more cautious than warranted, especially in view of the fact that her daughter remained a spinster. Hence, the contention that the execution of the will was wholly unnecessary, cannot improve the case of Papayammal. .39. The next contention that the original will was not produced and that the first paper publication does not contain a reference to the original Will, does not make a dent in the case of Dr. Chandrika Ayyar. The events starting from the disappearance of Dr. .39. The next contention that the original will was not produced and that the first paper publication does not contain a reference to the original Will, does not make a dent in the case of Dr. Chandrika Ayyar. The events starting from the disappearance of Dr. Chandrika Ayyar from the property in question on 01.06.2007, the complaint given by her niece J. vidya to the Mambalam Police Station on 02.06.2007 and the events that culminated in the arrest and detention of Vijaya Baskar and Papayammal clearly point out the reasons for non-production of the original will. Moreover, it is a document in favour of Dr. Chandrika Ayyar. The non-production of a document is not to her advantage. An adverse inference can be drawn against her only if the non-production of the document was to her advantage. Therefore, the second contention cannot also be accepted. 40. The next contention that the affidavit of PW-2 does not satisfy the requirements of a valid attestation, is not tenable. PW-2 has testified that he was present at the time of execution of the Will and that he had seen the witnesses attesting the Will.7 41. The next contention was based upon the valuation of the property contained in the petition for probate and the Agreement of sale. Though much ado was made about this and it was conteded that the agreement was a champertous 39 agreement, the contention has no correlation to the issue that I am now called upon to decide. The issue to be decided in A. No.2402 of 2008 is as to whether a just cause is made out for revocation of the Probate. Papayammal came up with this application on the ground that she is the only and a real daughter of the Testatrix. But she has failed to establish the same. Therefore the question as to whether Dr. Chandrika Ayyar entered into a questionable agreement with a builder or not, is of no relevance. The valuation is of relevance, for the purpose of probate duty and the District Collector is always obliged to take note of the value contained in the agreement, while levying duty. 42. The fact that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-was reversed under the Agreement of Sale for defraying legal and incidental expenses, towards the probate proceedings, cannot be taken advantaged of by Papayammal. 42. The fact that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-was reversed under the Agreement of Sale for defraying legal and incidental expenses, towards the probate proceedings, cannot be taken advantaged of by Papayammal. As a matter of feet, the duty payable, after assessment of the value by the collector, may by itself workout to nearly Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, reserving a larger amount than what is necessary, under an agreement of sale, towards such expenses, cannot make an agreement champertous. .43. Coming to the contention that an order granting Probate is an order in rem and that even a slightest doubt is enough to revoke the Probate, I have no quarrel with the same as a proposition of law. Referring to section 41 of the Evidence Act, the supreme court held in Crystal Developers v. asha Lata Ghosh AIR 2004 SC 4980 : ( 2005)9 SCC 375: (2004)4 MLJ 172 that the grant operates as judgment in rem and can be set aside on the ground of fraud or collusion provided it is pleaded and proved by the party so alleging.l But as emphasized by the supreme court, it must be pleaded and proved by the party so alleging. Therefore the Probate Court is obliged to ask the person who seeks to create such a doubt, his identity and his locus. Merely because a shadow of doubt is cast, revocation of probate cannot be ordered at the instance of a total stranger or a third party. In this case, Papayammal’s claim to be the only and real daughter of the Testatrix appears to be obviously false and part of a design evolved by Vijaya Baskar to grab the property. Such a person is not entitled to seek revocation of Probate. At any rate, I am not convinced that Papayammal has shown suspicious circumstances or created a doubt, about the will and the claim of Dr. Chandrika Ayyar. 44. The contention that Dr. Chandrika Ayyar failed to implead and foiled to issue citation to Papayammal despite being aware of the rival claim made by her, is to be stated only to be rejected. The logical extension of this argument would be to say that even Vijay Baskar should have been issued with citation. One must keep in mind that this is not a suit filed by Dr.Chandrika Ayyar for a declaration of title to the property, against a rival claim to title made by papayammal. The logical extension of this argument would be to say that even Vijay Baskar should have been issued with citation. One must keep in mind that this is not a suit filed by Dr.Chandrika Ayyar for a declaration of title to the property, against a rival claim to title made by papayammal. This is a Probate proceedings and in the circumstances in which she had come to Court, she was not bound to implead Papayammal. It is too much to expect an applicant in Probate proceedings to implead a person who is alleged by the applicant to be an impersonator. .45. The argument that the S.S.L.C. Certificate of Dr. Chandrike Ayyar established only the paternity and not maternity, does not hold water anymore, in view of the fact that Dr. Chandrika Ayyyar has also filed the Certificate issued by the Bank of India dated 09.07.2008, along with the supplemental affidavit. In that Certificate, it is sated that a Savings Bank Account bearing Ne.9778 was opened on 19.06.1986 in the joint names of S.V. Lakshmi Ammal and Chandrika Ayyar and that upon the demise of Lakshmi Ammal on 212. 2005, her name was deleted and the account now stands in the name of Chandrika Ayyar alone. She has also produced the first page of the pass book issued by the Indian Bank, T.Nagar Branch, relating to S.B.A/c. No.418530296, standing in the joint names of Lakshmi Ammal S.V. and Chandrika Ayyar. The date of opening of the account is indicated to be 010. 1995, 10 years before the death of Lakshmi Ammal. In any event, it is not open to Papayammal to question the maternity of Lakshmi Ammal to Dr. Chandrika Ayyar. As stated earlier, Papaymmal came up first with an affidavit alleging that she did not know Chandrika Ayyar as the relative of her mother and father. In the next affidavit, she claimed that Chandrika Ayyar was a stranger. But in the bail petition filed several months before filing the first affidavit, she claimed that Chandrika Ayyar was the daughter of O.V. Parthasarathy through his concubine Kamatchiammal. Such a person who has approbated and reprobated, with regard to the identity of Dr. Chandrika Ayyar, cannot question the maternity. 46. The argument that Dr. Chandrika Ayyar could not file a legal heirship Certificate, is of no value. Such a person who has approbated and reprobated, with regard to the identity of Dr. Chandrika Ayyar, cannot question the maternity. 46. The argument that Dr. Chandrika Ayyar could not file a legal heirship Certificate, is of no value. Papayammal, as seen from the grounds of detention of Vijaya Baskar, made the first strike, by securing a legal heirship Certificate from Taluk Office, under dubious circumstances. Moreover, a legal heirship Certificate is not a document issued under any provision of law. It is not like a Succession Certificate issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, all the contentions advanced on behalf of Papayammal, fall to the ground. 47. As stated earlier, the law is well settled that the scope of an enquiry to be conducted by a Probate Court on an application under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act or on an application for revocation under Section 263 of the Act, is limited. A Probate Court does not decide questions of title or questions which fall outside the pale of its jurisdiction. In Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra singh Lodha (2008) 4 SCC 300 : (2008) 3 MLJ1002 the supreme court held that a busybody or an interloper, would not be entitled to oppose the grant. Even if a person seeking revocation of Probate has a remote claim to succeed to the property intestate, he would certainly be entitled to citation and can maintain an application under Section 263 if no citation had been issued to him. But the person so claiming, should establish the he would succeed to the property, but for the Will. .48. In this case, if Papayammal is really the daughter (only or one of the many) of the Testatrix, she would certainly be entitled to seek revocation of Probate. But, she has not proved that she is the daughter of the Testatrix. All that she has proved is that she laid a claim to be the daughter of the Testatrix. All that she has proved is that she laid a claim to be the daughter of the Testatrix. But, that claim landed her up in jail and it is now the subject matter of a police investigation. All that she has proved is that she laid a claim to be the daughter of the Testatrix. All that she has proved is that she laid a claim to be the daughter of the Testatrix. But, that claim landed her up in jail and it is now the subject matter of a police investigation. As a matter of fact, Papayammal, in my opinion, has come up with the present application, to achieve two objectives viz., (i) to show to the police that her claim to be the real daughter is the subject matter of the Probate proceedings before this Court and to persuade the police to drop the case and (ii) to keep the litigation alive against Dr. Chandrika Ayyar by way of tiring out tactics, so that the elderly lady with no legal heirs would come kneeling down at least for a compromise. Therefore, allowing the application and revoking the Probate cannot be done at the instance of a person who has faked her identity, 49. Moreover, Papayammal is guilty of willful suppression of material particulars and changing the affidavits. As pointed out earlier, she had filed one affidavit on 28.02.2008 through her counsel Mr. Immanuel coke. That affidavit and judge’s summons were returned on 11.03.2008 for rectification of certain defects. After taking the return, the present counsel was engaged who appears to have represented the Judge’s summons along with an entirely new affidavit sworn to on 17.03.2008. Certain important facts contained in the first affidavit are burked in the second affidavit. Normally when papers relating to a case a returned, it is expected that the same papers with or without modifications and with or without additional papers are re-presented. The affiant of the affidavit, whose papers were returned, may be entitled to make corrections, additions and alterations in the original affidavit, along with a clean copy neatly typed. It is not open to that person to replace it with afresh affidavit especially in cases of this nature, where the first affidavit contained certain crucial details. It is relevant to note that the present proceedings are original and not appellate in nature. Therefore it is all the more necessary that the purity and sanctity of the proceedings are maintained. 50. It is relevant to note that the present proceedings are original and not appellate in nature. Therefore it is all the more necessary that the purity and sanctity of the proceedings are maintained. 50. To sum up, I am unable to believe that Papayammal could be the daughter of V. Parthasarathy and S.V. Lakshmi Ammal, for the following reasons:- (a) O.V. Parthasarathy was a Post Graduate and Lakshmi Ammal was a Matriculate of pre-independence days, but Papayammal is totally uneducated, (b) O.V. Parthasarathy appears to have held good positions in life, as seen from his description as the Personal Assistant to the Vice Chairman of India Tea Marketing Association, Calcutta, in the Sale Deed dated 23.08.1940 under which Lakshmi Ammal purchased the property in question. His addressed is stated in the Sale Deed to the 59D, Hari Sabha Lane, Kidderpur, Calcutta. In the light of these details and the contradictions found in the birth Certificate, I am unable to accept the birth Certificate as a genuine document. .(c) The admission made by Papayammal in her first affidavit, about her relationship with Vijaya Baskar and the burking of this fact in the second affidavit shows that she has suppressed material particulars deliberately. The claim made before the police that Dr. Chandrika Ayyar is the daughter of the concubine of O.V. Parthasarathy and the claim made in the present proceedings that Dr. Chandrika Ayyar is a stranger to the family exposes Papayammal’s intentions and designs. Even in the course of the present proceedings, it was contended at the time of arguments that the paternity is admitted. But the affidavit in support of the present application continued to remain the same as though Dr. Chandrika Ayyar is a stranger. There is no explanation as to why the first affidavit was not re-presented but was replaced. Thus, Papayammal has not come to Court with clean hand. It is needless to point out that a person should come to Court with clean hands, to seek any relief from the Court. .(d) The Will in question is a registered will. It contains the correct description of the, property, the date of its purchase and other details, which could not have been known to Dr. Chandrika Ayyar even in the year 1988, if she was a stranger. Two savigs bank accounts are shown to have existed in the joint names of Dr. .(d) The Will in question is a registered will. It contains the correct description of the, property, the date of its purchase and other details, which could not have been known to Dr. Chandrika Ayyar even in the year 1988, if she was a stranger. Two savigs bank accounts are shown to have existed in the joint names of Dr. Chandrika, Ayyar and and V. Laksfomi Ammal. Papayamtnal has suddenly appeared in the scence after two years of the death of S.V. Lakshmi Ammal. 51. In the above circumstances, I cannot presume that Papayammal could have been the daughter of the Testatrix. If Papayammal really has any claim about her lineage, she may go to the Civil Court and take a declaration that she is the daughter of O.V. Parthasarathy and Lakshmi Ammal, by impleading Dr. Chandrika Ayyar and thereafter seek revocation. At this stage, there is no credible material to make this Court think that she could be the daughter. Her claim to be the daughter is far from inspiring the confidence of this Court. Therefore the application for revocation of Probate A. No.2402 of 2008 is dismissed. 52. In view of the dismissal of A. No.2402 of 2008, the interim order of injunction originally granted by me on 29.04.2008, automatically goes. Therefore, the application A. No.2537 of 2008 for vacating the interim order shall stand consequently allowed. 53. Insofar as the application A. No.2645 of 2008 is concerned, it is for initiating action against Papayammal under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Bust as stated already, the complaint against Papayammal and Vijaya Baskar are under investigation. Therefore at this stage, I do not wish to issue such a direction. However, I have serious doubts about the veracity of the birth Certificate produced by Papayammal before this Court. I am of the considered view that this birth Certificate should also be forwarded to the Investigating Officer, for finding out its genuineness. Therefore A. No.2645 of 2008 is ordered to the limited extent of directing the registry to forward the original birth Certificate filed by Papayammal (supposedly issued by The Kolkata Municipal Corporation) to the Inspector of Police, R-1 Mambalam Police Station, for investigation of its genuineness, together with the investigation in progress in R1/Cr. No481 of 2007, so that the investigation may be comprehensive, covering all aspects. No costs.