Judgment :- S.C. Gupte, J. This appeal arises from an order of a learned Single Judge dated 28 January 2011 dismissing a Miscellaneous Petition for revocation of probate granted by this Court in a Testamentary Petition in favour of the First Respondent 888/1999. 2. In the Testamentary Petition, the First Respondent, as executor of the last will and testament dated 15 October 1990 of Pranlal Sunderji Doshi, applied for probate. Pranlal died on 30 March 1991, and left him surviving as his only heirs the following persons: Respondent no.1 as the widow, Respondent No.2 as the son, the Appellant as another son and two daughters. Pranlal had appointed the Appellant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as trustees and executors of his last will and testament. Respondent no.1 had filed an application for probate of the will. In the application, the Appellant filed an affidavit dated 12 September 2003 signifying his consent to his mother, Respondent no.1, applying alone for probate of the last will and testament of his deceased father. Probate was accordingly granted on 24 November 2003 in favour of Respondent no.1. 3. On 6 April 2008, the Appellant filed a Petition for revocation of probate. It was the case of the Appellant that: (i) Respondent no.1 was guilty of mismanaging the affairs of the properties left behind by the deceased; (ii) Respondent no.1 has not given effect to the directions contained in the will despite the passage of five years since the probate; and (iii) Respondent no.1 has not filed the inventory and account of the properties and credits mentioned in Schedule no. I of the probate petition. The Appellant, in the premises, applied for cancellation and revocation of the probate granted in favour of Respondent no.1. The Appellant also applied, as consequential reliefs, for directions for inventory and accounts upto the date of the petition from Respondent no.1 and appointment of the Appellant as an executor through a fresh probate. 4. On 9 December 2010, the Appellant amended the Petition by incorporating a challenge to the genuineness of the will of the deceased. It was claimed by the Appellant in the amendment that the signature of the deceased differed from a specimen of signatures of the deceased available with the Appellant. 5. The learned Single Judge in her impugned order noted that the revocation petition was wholly misconceived. It was claimed by the Appellant in the amendment that the signature of the deceased differed from a specimen of signatures of the deceased available with the Appellant. 5. The learned Single Judge in her impugned order noted that the revocation petition was wholly misconceived. The learned Judge observed that grant of probate could not be revoked if the executor failed to administer the property as per the grant. The learned Judge also noted that upon the Appellant making out a case for removal of an executor under the will, the Appellant could be appointed as an executor in place of Respondent no.1 after Respondent no.1 was directed to furnish inventory and accounts. On the amended case, the learned Judge observed that no original document was produced for comparing the signature of the deceased on the will. The learned Judge held that after acceptance of the will of the deceased, the Appellant could not make out a wholly inconsistent case challenging the genuineness of the will merely on the basis of photocopies. As for the signatures of the deceased on the certified copies of court proceedings, which signatures according to the learned Judge could be accepted for comparison, the learned Judge compared the same with the signature on the original will under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and found the signature on the will to be genuine. The learned Judge, in the premises, dismissed the Misc. Petition. 6. It may be noted that no evidence including evidence of any handwriting expert is produced by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge to dispute the genuineness of the signature of the deceased on the will probated by the court. Even as regards the signatures of the deceased available on record and which could be compared with the signature of the deceased on the will, there is no evidence adduced by the Appellant to impugn the genuineness of the signature of the deceased on the probated will. In the premises, the learned Judge was left with no alternative but to compare the signatures This Product is Licensed to Mr. B. Krishnan, Advocate, Vadakara under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Upon such comparison, the learned Judge found the signature of the deceased on the will to be genuine. 7. In the premises, the learned Judge was left with no alternative but to compare the signatures This Product is Licensed to Mr. B. Krishnan, Advocate, Vadakara under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Upon such comparison, the learned Judge found the signature of the deceased on the will to be genuine. 7. The other contentions of the Appellant concerning non-furnishing of an inventory and accounts by the executor in support of his obligation for revocation of probate may now be considered. 8. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that since the First Respondent has failed to exhibit an inventory containing an estimate of the property in possession of the executor as well as the credits and debts owed to the estate, the Appellant could rightfully apply for revocation of the probate. 9. Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which provides for revocation or an annulment of grant of probate or letters of administration for just cause, is in the following terms: “263. Revocation or annulment for just cause.-The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. Explanation.--Just cause shall be deemed to exist where-- (a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or (c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or (d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or (e) the person to whom the grant was made has wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this Part, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect. 10. Chapter VII of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides for the duties of an executor or administrator. Section 317 under this Chapter provides as follows: “317. Inventory and account. 10. Chapter VII of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides for the duties of an executor or administrator. Section 317 under this Chapter provides as follows: “317. Inventory and account. - (1) An executor or administrator shall, within six months from the grant of probate or letters of administration, or within such further time as the Court which granted the probate or letters may appoint, exhibit in that Court an inventory containing a full and true estimate of all the property in possession, and all the credits, and also all the debts owing by any person to which the executor or administrator is entitled in that character; and shall in like manner, within one year from the grant or within such further time as the said Court may appoint, exhibit an account of the estate, showing the assets which have come to his hands and the manner in which they have been applied or disposed of. (2) The High Court may prescribe the form in which an inventory or account under this section is to be exhibited. (3) If an executor or administrator, on being required by the Court to exhibit an inventory or account under this section, intentionally omits to comply with the requisition, he shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 176 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860.). (4) The exhibition of an intentionally false inventory or account under this section shall be deemed to be an offence under section 193 of that Code.” 11. It is clear from Section 263 read with Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 that for revocation or annulment of grant of probate or letters of administration, the failure of the executor or administrator to exhibit an inventory or account in terms of Section 317 must be willful and without reasonable cause. It is not sufficient for the Applicant for revocation to simply allege an omission to exhibit an inventory or account on the part of the executor or administrator but he must further allege and prove that such omission was willful and without reasonable cause. In the instant case what the Appellant has done in his Misc.Petition is to simply aver that Respondent no.1 had not filed the inventory and account of the properties and credits mentioned in Schedule-I of the probate petition. In the instant case what the Appellant has done in his Misc.Petition is to simply aver that Respondent no.1 had not filed the inventory and account of the properties and credits mentioned in Schedule-I of the probate petition. In the premises, the learned Judge was right in holding that the revocation petition was wholly misconceived. 12. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge was right in dismissing the Misc. Petition for revocation of probate and no fault can be found with the impugned order. 13. However, on the facts averred in the Petition, there was a case for requiring Respondent No.1 to exhibit an inventory and account as claimed in prayer (c) of the Misc.Petition. Respondent No.1 is accordingly directed to file within six weeks from today : (i) An inventory containing a full and true estimate of all the property in possession of Respondent No.1, and all the credits, and also all the debts owing by any person to which Respondent No.1 is entitled in her character as the Executor; and (ii) An account of the estate, showing the assets which have come to her hands and the manner in which they have been applied or disposed of. 14. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.