Judgment :- A.No.2662 of 2008 in O.P.No.625 of 2007: This application has been filed by the third party to the original petition to revoke the grant of Letters of Administration annexed with the Will dated 28.02.2005, to the respondent by its order dated 16.11.2007. 2. O.A.No.651 of 2008 in O.P.No.625 of 2007: This application has been filed to grant an order of injunction restraining the respondents from claiming or receiving the documents of title relating to the property of late Viswam Shri Kandan from Commercial Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd, Chennai. 3. A.No.4240 of 2008 in O.P.No.785 of 2006: This application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner seeking for a direction against the respondent to deposit the sum of Rs.34,51,702/-, being the arrears of rent payable till 31.08.2008 and thereafter, at the rate of Rs.71,020/- for every month on or before the5th of succeeding month commencing from October 2008. 4. Heard Mr.K.P.S.Kasthurirangan learned counsel appearing for M/s.Sampathkumar Associates for the applicant in all the applications and Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.M.Sriram, for the respondents in all the applications. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit in his argument that the respondent in the applications, OA.No.651 of 2008 and A.No.2662 of 2008 had applied for a grant of Letters of Administration in O.P.No.625 of 2007 on the foot of a Will said to have been executed on 28.02.2005 by one Viswam Shri Kandan and the respondent/petitioner did not add any person who has got interest in the said property as respondents and obtained Letters of Administration on 16.11.2007. He would further submit that the said testator Viswam Shri Kandan was having three brothers namely V.Ramachandran, V.L.Narayanan and Dwarakanath and one sister namely Sarojini and the said Viswam Shri Kandan died as a bachelor and he did not marry anybody till his death. He would further submit that the said testator Viswam Shri Kandan was having three brothers namely V.Ramachandran, V.L.Narayanan and Dwarakanath and one sister namely Sarojini and the said Viswam Shri Kandan died as a bachelor and he did not marry anybody till his death. Therefore, the brothers and sister of the deceased Viswam Shri Kandan, were the legal representatives of the said Viswam Sri Kandan, in the absence of any Will and the applicant herein is the son of Dwarakanath, who is the younger brother of Viswam Shri Kandan and the said Viswam Shri Kandan had executed a registered Will in favour of said Dwarahanath on 13.12.2004 in the presence of two attesting witnesses and the same was registered with Sub-Registrar, Mylapore, Chennai, in respect of the property bearing Old No.82, New No.100 in Chamiers Road and the same was filed in testamentary proceedings in O.P.No.785 of 2006 and the father of the applicant Dwarakanath died during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore, the applicant himself was impleaded as petitioner and other legal representatives, as respondents, in the said proceedings. Thereafter, this Court had granted Letters of Administration on 3.3.2008 in favour of the applicant. He would also submit that the Viswam Sri Kandan has also executed another Will in favour of the father of the applicant regarding the propertes at Idukki District, and he was the legatee under the said Will would further submit that the respondent was very much aware that the applicant's father Dwarakanath was the legatee under the Wills executed by the testator, to which, the petitioner has referred to in the main original petition itself but did not elect to cite the father of the applicant Dwarakanath as well as other legatees of the earlier Wills of the testator as respondents in the original petition. The legatees under the previous Wills are certainly having caveatable interest in the subject matter. He would also submit that the other legal representatives of the deceased Viswam Shri Kandan namely brothers and sister were not cited as respondents in the original petition since they have also got caveatable interest. The legatees under the previous Wills are certainly having caveatable interest in the subject matter. He would also submit that the other legal representatives of the deceased Viswam Shri Kandan namely brothers and sister were not cited as respondents in the original petition since they have also got caveatable interest. He would further submit in his argument that the deceased Viswam Shri Kandan died as bachalor but it has been stated in the petition that the respondent/petitioner was the maternal grand daughter of the said Viswam Shri Kandan and the mother of the respondent namely Rajamani @ Rajam was the daughter of Viswam Shri Kandan and one Angammal. He would further submit that the said Angammal was never married to Viswam Shri Kandan and she was already the wife of one Muthusamy Gounder and the said Rajamani was born to Muthusamy Gounder and Angammal and she was married to one Govindasamy, who is the respondent in A.No.4240 of 2008 in O.P.No.785 of 2006. He would also place reliance on the registered copy of a sale deed dated 10.09.1973 in favour of one K.Lakshmi Bai executed by Angammal @ Angatha, W/o. Muthusamy Gounder and Rajamani W/o.Govindasamy in respect of a property at Karur Town. Similarly, he also placed reliance on the Encumbrance Certificate obtained over the said property, in which, the property was purchased by the said Muthusamy Gounder and Angathammal on 22.06.1960, which was mortgaged on 29.12.1960 with Karur Town Co-operative Bank Ltd and thereafter, an usufructous mortgage for 5 years in a registered document dated 23.06.1967 in favour of one Ramalingam and thereafter, the sale deed dated 10.09.1973 in favour of Lakshmibai. He would further submit in his argument that the said Angammal @ Angatha was actually the wife of Muthusamy Gounder and she was not the wife of Viswam Shri Kandan. He would also submit that when Viswam Shri Kandan was not married to anybody, the status of the said Rajamani, mother of the respondent and the respondent claiming to be the heir of Viswam Shri Kandan, could not be true and it is a huge fraud committed upon the Court by putting forth false particulars for obtaining Letters of Administration. He would also submit that when Viswam Shri Kandan was not married to anybody, the status of the said Rajamani, mother of the respondent and the respondent claiming to be the heir of Viswam Shri Kandan, could not be true and it is a huge fraud committed upon the Court by putting forth false particulars for obtaining Letters of Administration. He would further submit that the reference as to the status of Angammal and Rajamani as wife and daughter of Viswam Shri Kandan would be found as false since the said Viswam Shri Kandan had himself presented a complaint before Police Commissioner against the said Angammal on 09.12.2003. He would draw the attention of the Court that in the said complaint, Angammal was stated to have stolen money and the Title Deed of the property in No.100 Chamiers Road. He would further submit that the respondent who has no status as legal heir, had fabricated the unregistered Will for the purpose of grabing the property. He would further insist in his argument that the non-citations of necessary persons who have got caveatable interest and the next kin of the testator would vitiate the proceedings and therefore, the grant of letters of administration has to be revoked. He would also submit in his argument that the respondent/petitioner did not cite the applicant's father Dwarakanath, who was the legatee in the Will dated 13.12.2004 and 17.01.2005 and the other brothers and sister of the deceased Viswam Shri Kandan, who are his next of kin and if really they are cited as respondents, they would have brought all the suppression and fraudulent activities of the respondent/petitioner made in the petition and would prove that the respondent/petitioner was not entitled to letters of administration. The status as to the grand-daughter of the testator alleged by the respondent/petitioner was a false one and the pleading falsity could be a just cause for revoking the letters of administration. Similarly, the applicant's father Dwarakanath and the applicant, the legal representative of the father Dwarakanath are entitled to citation in the Land Acquisition proceedings as they have got caveatable interest in the property. Similarly the other brothers and sister are also having interest in the property as next of kin of the testator. Similarly, the applicant's father Dwarakanath and the applicant, the legal representative of the father Dwarakanath are entitled to citation in the Land Acquisition proceedings as they have got caveatable interest in the property. Similarly the other brothers and sister are also having interest in the property as next of kin of the testator. He would cite a judgment of this Court reported in 1995-2- L.W.65 between G.Nagappan v.Kalaiselvam for the principle that the requirements of citing parties for a probate under Form-55 is mandatory and the non-inclusion of next of kin or other persons interested, would vitiate the order passed and it is revocable. He would further submit in his argument that the letters of administration is on the same footing in which Form-59 has to be complied with and as per para 8' of the format the next of kin have not been mentioned nor they are cited as respondents. He would further submit that the requirements of Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, to cite the persons who have got caveatable interest would also make the grant of letters of administration, revoked. He would also bring it to the notice of this Court yet another judgment of this Court reported in 1995-LW-862 (V.Muralidharan v.R.Raghavendran) for the same proposition of law. He would cite yet another judgment of this Court reported in 2001(2) CTC 466 (K.Jayaraman v. K.Rajagopalan and another) in support of his arguments. Therefore, he would request the Court that the order obtained by the respondent/petitioner in O.P.No.625 of 2007 on 16.11.2007 has to be revoked under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act. 6. He would further submit in his argument that the respondent/petitioner is seeking to get the documents of title from Commercial Employees of the Co-operative Thrifts and Credit Society Ltd, Chembudhas Street, Chennai, where the deceased Viswam Shri Kandan had borrowed money by depositing title deeds, with the help of the grant of letters of administration. He would further submit in his argument that if the respondent/petitioner is permitted to do so, the documents of title will pass on to the respondent/petitioner and in the event of revocation of letters of administration, it would be very difficult for the applicant to get the documents of title even though he would be granted letters of administration in O.P.No.785 of 2006 on 03.03.2008. He would therefore, request the Court that an injunction may be granted against the respondent/petitioner from receiving the documents relating to the property of late Viswam Shri Kandan from commercial employees of the Co-operative Thrifts and Credit Society Ltd, Chembudhas Street, Chennai. He would further submit in his argument that the applicant had applied for the letters of administration on the foot of the registered Will executed by Viswam Shri Kandan dated 13.12.2004 and letters of administration was granted on 3.3.2008 and the applicant is entitled to step into the shoes of his father Dwarakanath and pursue the rent control decree in fixing the fair rent at Rs.71,020/-per month for the demised building in RCOP No.1336 of 2004 dated 3.11.2004 before the Small Causes Court of Chennai and to get the arrears of rent also. He would therefore, seek a direction against the respondent in A.No.4240 of 2008 to deposit arrears of fair rent and also to issue a direction to the respondent to deposit every month's rent payable to the demised premises to the credit of O.P.No.785 of 2006. He would therefore, request the Court that all the applications may be allowed and O.P.No.625 of 2007 may be converted into TOS, after revoking of the letters of administration issued in favour of the respondent/petitioner in the said applications. 7. The learned senior counsel Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy appearing for the respondents in all the applications would submit in his argument that the Viswam Shri Kandan, testator has revoked all the previous Wills by virtue of execution of the Will dated 28.02.2005 in favour of his own maternal grand daughter. He would further submit in his argument that the testator Viswam Shri Kandan married Angammal and was living with her and through the wedlock they got one daughter Rajamani and was given in marriage to one Govindasamy, who is the respondent in A.No.4240 of 2008 and all these facts were categorically stated by the testator himself in a registered Will executed on 02.10.1976 which was subsequently revoked by execution of a Will in favour of his brother Dwarakanath on 13.12.2004, in respect of the said property and thereafter, on 17.01.2005 yet another Will was executed, in respect of the property at Idukki District and finally, the said testator Viswam Shri Kandan had executed a Will on 28.02.2005, cancelling all the previous Wills. He would further submit in his argument that the said Will was executed by the testator in the presence of two attesting witnesses and Advocate Notary one T.L.L.Ramakrishnan and it was a true and genuine document. He would further submit in his argument that when the said Angammal was shown to be the wife of the testator, Viswam Shri Kandan, in the earlier registered Will dated 02.10.1976, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that Angammal was not the wife of the testator and Rajamani was not his daughter and the respondent was not his grand-daughter, and the respondent was not having any status to maintain the main Original Petition, are not sustainable. He would further submit in his argument that when the said Angammal predeceased the testator and the mother of the respondent Rajamani was the only legal heir of the testator, the brothers and sister of Viswam Shri Kandan are not entitled to be described as next of kin of the testator. He would further submit in his argument that the non-impleadment of such persons would vitiate the probate proceedings, is not sustainable. He would further submit that the present proceedings being for letters of administration, interested persons alone are entitled to be impleaded as respondents. The applicant being the son of one of the brothers of the testator is not entitled to be cited as respondent. He would further submit in his argument that the registration copy of the sale deed produced in the typed set is not a relevant document since the respondent's mother or the grand mother were not parties to it. The said registration copy of the sale deed and other encumbrance certificate would be in respect of identical persons and it is not referring to the respondent's mother or grand mother. He would also submit that the alleged complaint given by the deceased testator against the grand mother of Angammal, was not true and there was no case registered on that basis nor any receipt given by the policies was produced to substantiate the same. He would further submit that no reliance can be placed upon those documents when it was a categorical admission made by the testator himself in the Will dated 02.10.1976 about the relationship. He would further submit that no reliance can be placed upon those documents when it was a categorical admission made by the testator himself in the Will dated 02.10.1976 about the relationship. He would also refer to a judgment of this Court reported in 2010 (2) CTC 680 (J.Malarvizhi v. D.Shankar) for the principle that the Court can refuse revocation if there is no likelihood of proof being offered that the Will admitted was either not genuine or not validly executed. He would further cite a judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 6 MLJ 1150 (K.Veeramani and others v. Rani and another) for the preposition that the title of testator cannot be disputed in the proceedings of letters of administration. The application is filed by the person who is not direct descendant of the testator and therefore, is not sustainable. He would further refer to a judgment of this Court reported in 2009(6) MLJ 464 for the proposition that revocation of grant of probate on the basis of suspicious circumstances and trust worthiness of attesting witnesses based on the ground of fraud cannot be availed under Section 263 and its explanation (b) of the Indian Succession Act. He would further quote the judgment of this Court reported in (2009) 6 MLJ 227 (N.Sthirasundari and another v.V.Kalyani and others) for the principle that when caveatable interest is not seen for the applicants who seek for revocation of the letters of administration or probate, such applicants would loose their right to file objections. Therefore, he would request the Court that the revocation of the letters of administration as sought for by the applicant cannot be sustained and the said application may be dismissed. 8. He would also further submit in his argument that the prayer as sought for by the applicant in A.No.651 of 2008 for an order of injunction against the respondent/petitioner restraining her from getting the title deeds at Commercial Employees Co-operative Thrifts and Society Ltd, Chennai, cannot be granted to the applicant. He would further submit in his argument that the respondent/petitioner had discharged the loan payable to the said Society where the grand father of the respondent personally borrowed and therefore, the respondent/petitioner is entitled to get back the title deeds. He would further submit in his argument that the respondent/petitioner had discharged the loan payable to the said Society where the grand father of the respondent personally borrowed and therefore, the respondent/petitioner is entitled to get back the title deeds. He would further submit that it is the dictum of this Court that in a probate proceedings injunction cannot be granted since the grant of injunction is purely an inherent power is vested with original side jurisdiction but this jurisdiction is testamentary jurisdiction and the proceedings are not attracted for granting the relief under Order 39 CPC. He would cite a judgment in AIR(36) 1949 Madras 45 (Namagiri Ammal v. T.Subba Rao) in support of his argument. Referring the aforesaid principle laid down by this Court, he would request the Court to dismiss the application seeking for the grant of injunction in O.A.No.651 of 2008. Similarly, he would also submit in his argument that the title regarding the property cannot be decided in a probate proceedings. The respondent/petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the property and the applicant is also raising a plea for title by virtue of the grant of letters of administration in O.P.No.785 of 2006. The testamentary jurisdiction can decide only the truth and genuineness of the Will executed by the testator and not the title of the testator. Similarly, the title to the suit properties cannot also be determined in between the parties claiming under various Wills. The respondent in A.No.4240 of 2008 was a tenant under Viswam Shri Kandan and was paying rent payable to him. After the death of Viswam Shri Kandan, on the basis of the Will executed by the testator in favour of his grand daughter namely respondent/petitioner in O.P.No.625 of 2007, she is entitled to receive the rent and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to seek for any deposit in the original petition filed by him in O.P.No.785 of 2006. He would further submit in his argument that if really, the applicant is entitled to get the said enhanced fair rent payable to the demised premises if any, it could be agitated before the Competent Forum and the testamentary Court cannot decide the crucial question to which evidence are necessary to decide the same. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the application in A.No.4240 of 2008 also. 9. Therefore, he would request the Court to dismiss the application in A.No.4240 of 2008 also. 9. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. 10. The applicant has applied for the revocation of the issuance of letters of administration granted in favour of the respondent/petitioner in O.P.No.625 of 2007 dated 16.11.2007. The points for such revocation are that the respondent/petitioner has given: (i) false particulars regarding the status of the respondent/petitioner (ii) the respondent/petitioner did not implead or cite the next of kin of the deceased testator i.e., the brothers and sister of the testator and (iii) the previous legatee who has got caveatable interest in the suit property has not been cited as respondent. Apart from this, it has been argued that the Will has been fraudulently brought forward as if the testator has executed the Will with false particulars and it was stated to be a fraudulent act of the respondent/petitioner. 11. The relationship of the applicant was that he was the son of Dwarakanath and the said Dwarakanath was one of the brothers of the testator Viswam Shri Kandan and there were two more brothers and one sister for the testator Viswam Shri Kandan. Admittedly, the father of the applicant or the applicant, his son or his other legal representatives if any were not cited as respondent in the original petition nor the other brothers namely V.Ramachandran, V.L.Narayanan and the only sister Sarojini were also not made as parties. The insistence for the revocation of the grant of letters of administration of the Will as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant was that the impleadment or citation of next of kin is mandatory as per Form-55 of the Original Sides Rules for the probate proceedings and the non-inclusion of the next of kin is fatal to the case. For that, the judgments of this Court has been cited in 1995 (2) LW 65 and 1995 (2) LW 862 . The relevant portion in the judgment reported in 2001 (2) CTC 466 was also relied upon for the same proposition. The relevant portion in the judgment reported in 1995-2- L.W.65 between G.Nagappan v.Kalaiselvam would be as follows:- "6. ..... For that, the judgments of this Court has been cited in 1995 (2) LW 65 and 1995 (2) LW 862 . The relevant portion in the judgment reported in 2001 (2) CTC 466 was also relied upon for the same proposition. The relevant portion in the judgment reported in 1995-2- L.W.65 between G.Nagappan v.Kalaiselvam would be as follows:- "6. ..... Under O.25, Rule 4 of the Original Side Rules, an application for probate shall be made by a petition with the will annexed, accompanied, if the will is not in English by an Official translation thereof in English and such application shall be in Form No.55 or as near thereto as the circumstances of the case may permit. The language is mandatory and the application ought to be in Form 55. Form 55 found in Appendix II in Cl.7 thereof, which was introduced by R.O.C.No.3618-A/89 F1, reads as follows: "The petitioner has impleaded all the next of kin or other persons interested as party/respondents. There is no next of kin or other person interested to be impleaded." No doubt the form was amended only in 1991 but the Court was always insisting upon such impleading of nearer heirs. The petitioner was guilty of not even disclosing the particulars of such persons. The petitioner ought to have impleaded his father Balakrishnan and his sisters as parties. The appellant and his two sisters were undoubtedly interested parties to the Original Petition and notice should have been issued to them. Even if itcan be said that they cannot claim to be legal heirs unless they prove their status they were interested parties and they ought to have been made respondents in the original petition." 12. Similar views have been expressed in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicant in 1995-LW-862 (V.Muralidharan v.R.Raghavendran) and 2001(2) CTC 466 (K.Jayaraman v. K.Rajagopalan and another). As per the dictum laid down, it is very clear that the next of kin or other persons interested shall be impleaded as party/respondent. There should also be a declaration that there is no next of kin or other person to be impleaded. This is the comment under Form-55 which is meant for application for a probate. As regards the application for letters of administration, the appropriate form is Form-59. In Form-59, para-8 alone is relevant. There should also be a declaration that there is no next of kin or other person to be impleaded. This is the comment under Form-55 which is meant for application for a probate. As regards the application for letters of administration, the appropriate form is Form-59. In Form-59, para-8 alone is relevant. "that the deceased left -------------- surviving him as his next- of-kin according to (state the law) residing at ------" Therefore, there is no need for stating about the impleadment of next of kin as party / respondent as per Form-59. However, the respondent/petitioner shall state the particulars of next of kin of the deceased testator. The said particulars were not given in the original petition filed by the respondent/petitioner. The arguments advanced on the side of the applicant would be that the respondent/petitioner even though has stated about the previous Will executed in favour of the applicant's father Dwarakanath on 13.12.2004 and also another Will dated 17.01.2005 and both the said Wills were said to have been revoked under the Will dated 28.2.2005 in favour of the respondent/petitioner, the respondent/petitioner has not come forward to cite the previous legatee or his heirs as respondents to the petition. According to the applicant's counsel, the non-impleadment of the previous legatee is attracted under illustration (ii) of Section 263 of Indian Succession Act. Since the father of the applicant was dead, during the pendence of land acquisition proceedings, the applicant is stated to be a necessary party, who has got caveatable interest in the said property. On a cursory look at the original petition filed by the respondent/petitioner, she stated about the Will executed by the testator on 13.12.2004 and 17.01.2005. in favour of Dwarakanath, the father of the applicant. Admittedly, the said legatee Dwarakanath was not impleaded as respondent. Even on the death of the said Dwarakanath, his legal representatives who are having interest over the estate of Dwarakanath were not impleaded. Therefore, on the death of the said Dwarakanath, the applicant, who is a legal representative of Dwarakanath will be a legatee under the previous Will. As far as the legatee under the previous Will are concerned, their rights were dealt with by this Court in a judgment in 17 Mad 373 between Rahamathullah Sahip v. Rombut. Therefore, on the death of the said Dwarakanath, the applicant, who is a legal representative of Dwarakanath will be a legatee under the previous Will. As far as the legatee under the previous Will are concerned, their rights were dealt with by this Court in a judgment in 17 Mad 373 between Rahamathullah Sahip v. Rombut. According to the said judgment of this Court, the legatee under previous Will, even though he was not a legatee under the Will in question, the persons who held to have a sufficient interest are entitled to contest the Will in question. In the said circumstances, the applicant's father, and on his death, the applicant who are deemed to be legatees of the previous Will are certainly entitled to have caveatable interest over the proceedings of property and are entitled to contest the Will in question. Such interested party has not been admittedly impleaded in the letters of administration proceedings. 13. Nextly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the relationship alleged by the respondent/petitioner was fraudulently made in the original petition as if the respondent/petitioner was the maternal grand daughter of the deceased testator when the testator died as a bachelor. For that purpose, he had referred to a registration copy of a sale deed dated 10.09.1973 describing the mother of the respondent as the daughter of one Muthusamy Gounder and Angammal and the said Angammal was also described as the wife of Muthusamy Gounder and their particulars of address were also mentioned that they were living in Chamiers Road. Further, the encumbrance certificate regarding the said property which depicts various encumbrance commencing from 1960 onwards, in which, the said Angammal had joined with Muthusamy Gounder as his wife to deal with several transactions. Furthermore, a complaint given by the deceased testator to the Police Commissioner on 09.12.2003 produced would show that the said Angammal had stolen money and title deeds from the custody of the deceased testator. Whether these documents could be considered at this stage to come to any conclusion that the allegations made in the original petition that the respondent/petitioner was the grand daughter of the testator, was a false and fraudulent one is a question. Whether these documents could be considered at this stage to come to any conclusion that the allegations made in the original petition that the respondent/petitioner was the grand daughter of the testator, was a false and fraudulent one is a question. However, it has been also put forth by the learned Senior Counsel that the testator himself had admitted in the earlier Will dated 02.10.1976, that Angammal was his wife and Rajamani was his daughter born to the testator and Angammal and the Rajamani was married to one Govindasamy and the said document being a registered one, it cannot be construed that the respondent/petitioner was not the grand daughter of the testator Viswam Shri Kandan. These documents produced on the side of the applicant as well as the averment made in the Will said to have been executed by the testator on 02.10.1976 require a full-fledged trial which can be decided only in a suit with the help of oral evidence and then only the Court can come to a conclusion as to whether there was any fraudulent action done by the respondent/petitioner in stating her status as maternal grand daughter of the testator Viswam Shri Kandan. The judgment as cited by the learned Senior Counsel in 2010 (2) CTC 680 is not helpful to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the judgment cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, reported in 2009 (6) MLJ 464 (S.V.Ramakrishnan v. P.R.Sethuraman and Others) is also not helpful for refusing the claim of the applicant, at this stage. 14. However, it has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the direct legal heirs alone are to be impleaded in letters of administration proceedings and the other brothers and sister of the testator cannot be the direct descendants in the presence of the daughter of the testator namely Rajamani is alive. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel in 2009 (6) MLJ 1150 (K.Veeramani and Others v. Rani and Another) would run as follows:- "14 The respondent/original petitioner was the daughter of Andal Ammal, who married Natesa Naicker and she is a direct legal heir of the deceased Andal Ammal, whereas the applicants were the sons of the second husband Kuppusamy. Therefore, they cannot be called as a direct descendants of Andal Ammal. Therefore, they cannot be called as a direct descendants of Andal Ammal. They cannot dispute the title of Andal Ammal in these proceedings as in a proceedings for Letters of Administration, no one can question the title of the testatrix." 15. On the basis of the judgment, I could see that the brothers and sister of the testator, cannot be the direct descendants in the presence of a daughter alive. However, the status of the respondent/petitioner and her mother Rajamani Ammal as grand daughter and daughter of the testator have been questioned. In the earlier paragraph, it has been found that such status can be decided only in a full-fledged trial. Therefore, the question of direct descendency available to the brothers and sister of the deceased testator could only be found in the said full-fledged trial. Therefore, it cannot be settled in a non-contentions proceedings. 16. Now, we have to see whether the omission to implead the legatees of the previous Will or the disputes regarding the status of parties and their relationship with the testator would vitiate the letters of administration proceedings is a question to be seen. 17. The relevant Section referring the requirements of annulment of grant of letters of administration or probate are being given under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act. The provisions under Section 263 are as follows:- Add Section: ---------"Explanation.- Just cause shall be deemed to exist where- a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or d) the grant as 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 a material respect. Illustrations i) TheCourt by which the grant was made had no jurisdiction. ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited. Illustrations i) TheCourt by which the grant was made had no jurisdiction. ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited. iii) The Will of which probate was obtained was forged or revoked. iv) A obtained letters of administration to the estate of B, as his widow, but it has since transpired that she was never married to him. v) Ahas taken administration to the estate of B as if he had died intestate, but a Will has since been discovered. vi) Since probate was granted, a latter Will has been discovered. vii) Since probate was granted, a codicil has been discovered which revokes or adds to the appointment of executors under the Will. viii) The person to whom probate was , or letters of administration were, granted has subsequently become of unsound mind." 18. As per the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, there should be just cause for passing an order of revocation of a grant of probate or letters of administration. In the earlier paragraph, I have found that the dispute of status of respondent/petitioner as stated in the petition has to be decided only in full-fledged trial and not in this revocation proceeding. It has been categorically held by this Court in 2009 (6) MLJ 1150 (K.Veeramani and Others v. Rani and Another) that the direct descendants should have been impleaded in letters of administration proceedings in which the brothers and sister of the deceased testator could be the direct descendants if it is found that the testator died as bachelor and the grand mother of the respondent Angammal was not his wife and the mother of the respondent was not his daughter and consequently the respondent was not the grand daughter of the testator. As I have already found that can be decided in a contentions proceedings only. Such contentions proceedings require the presence of the brothers and sister of the testator, who are the probable direct descendants, if the status of the respondent her mother and grand mother with the testator are found to be false and fraudulent. Therefore, the brothers and sister of the testator are interested parties to the land acquisition proceedings. 19. Furthermore, it has been admitted by the respondent/petitioner in the main original petition itself that the applicant's father Dwarakanath was the legatee in the previous Will. Therefore, the brothers and sister of the testator are interested parties to the land acquisition proceedings. 19. Furthermore, it has been admitted by the respondent/petitioner in the main original petition itself that the applicant's father Dwarakanath was the legatee in the previous Will. Now, the applicant is claiming on the foot of the legatee Dwarakanath. Admittedly, neither the said Dwarakanath or the applicant are made as parties. According to the judgment of this Court made in 17 Mad 373 between Rahamathullah Sahip v. Rombut, the legatee under the previous Will is having caveatable interest and having a right to contest the Will in question. Neither Dwarakanath nor applicant are made as a party. Similarly, the legatees in the earlier Will were also not described as respondents or impleaded as parties. In the said circumstances, the illustration No.ii under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act is squarely applicable, under which, the applicant and his father Dwarakanath were not cited as parties, who ought to have been cited in the letters of administration proceedings. Therefore, there is no other option for this Court to revoke the letters of administration granted in favour of the respondent/petitioner in O.P.No.625 of 2007. The non-impleadment of the legatee of the previous Will who has got cavatable interest, will certainly attract the definition of just cause to revoke the letters of administration granted by this Court. 20. As regards the grant of injunction from delivering the title deeds to the respondent / petitioner is concerned, no doubt the revocation of letters of administration will lead to the dis-entitlement of any right in the property by its grant till it is decided by way of Testamentary Original Suit. However, in a testamentary proceedings, no injunction can be granted by a testamentary Court as it has been categorically laid down in a judgment of this Court reported in AIR (36) 1949 Madras 45 (Namagiri Ammal v. T.Subba Rao). The relevant passage would run as follows:- " In probate proceedings it cannot be said that any property is in dispute and, therefore, an application for injunction pending an appeal to the High Court from a decree granting a probate will not come within the scope of O.39, R.1. Order 39, R.2 has no application to such a case. The inherent powers of the High Court on its original side cannot also be invoked in such a case:" 21. Order 39, R.2 has no application to such a case. The inherent powers of the High Court on its original side cannot also be invoked in such a case:" 21. It is very clear that the testamentary court cannot pass any order of injunction since the provisions of Order 39 C.P.C. is not applicable to the testamentary proceedings. Therefore, the applicant in O.A.No.651 of 2008 is not entitled to the relief sought for. 22. Similarly, the request made by the applicant for directing the respondent in A.No.4240 of 2008 to deposit the fair rent cannot also be ordered. Since the testamentary jurisdiction is meant for upholding the truth and genuineness of the Will only, it has no jurisdiction regarding rent control proceedings. Once the rent control proceedings have been completed regarding fixation of fair rent, the party who has a right, title to rescue the rent or the landlord has to pursue the recovery of the same. Therefore, the applicant has to proceed before appropriate forum for appropriate relief. The present petition seeking for a direction to deposit fair rent fixed in a rent control proceedings, cannot be ordered in this Court. 23. For the foregoing discussion I am of the considered view that the applications in A.No.4240 of 2008 and O.A.No.651 of 2008 have to be dismissed, accordingly, both the applications are dismissed. The application in A.No.2662 of 2008 seeking for revocation of letters of administration granted in O.P.No.625 of 2007 dated 16.11.2007 is hereby ordered. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.