ORDER Application No.4446 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants/third parties under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 263 of Indian Succession Act and Order XXV Rules 62 & 66 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 151 of CPC, praying to direct the respondents not to give effect to order dated 31.10.2013 of grant of letters of Administration of the alleged Will dated 16.06.2000 of late Thiru.P.D.Rajagopalan in favour of the 1st respondent. 2. Application No.4447 of 2014 has been filed by the applicants/third parties under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 263 of Indian Succession Act and Order XXV Rule 62 of O.S.Rules praying for revocation of the grant of letters of Administration of the alleged Will dated 16.06.2000 of late Thiru.P.D.Rajagopalan in favour of the 1st respondent granted on 31.10.2013. 3. The 1st respondent herein has filed the Original Petition No.842 of 2012 seeking for grant of Letters of Administration in favour of her, in respect of the Will dated 16.06.2000 executed by one P.D.Rajagopalan. In the Original Petition, it is the case of the 1st respondent herein that the testator P.D.Rajagopalan was a bachelor and he had only one brother viz., P.D.Veeraghavan Iyengar, who died on 02.11.1977. The 1st respondent and other respondents are the children of the said P.D.Veeraghavan Iyengar and they are the Class II legal heirs of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan. The parents of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan predeceased him and he had no other brother or sister. His last Will and Testament was duly executed by him at Chennai on 16.06.2000 in the presence of two witnesses vi z., Mr. PNS. Sundar and Mrs. R.Uma, bequeathing his properties in favour of the 1st respondent, who is his brother's daughter. In the Original Petition, the other respondents have given consent affidavits. 4. By order dated 31.10.2013, this Court passed an order granting Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 16.06.2000 in favour of the 1st respondent herein/petitioner therein. 5. Now, the present applications have been filed by the applicants/third parties, through their power agent viz., their father Mr.K.Kalaivanan, seeking for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by this Court granting Letters of Administration; and also for revocation of Letters of Administration granted by this Court. 6. 5. Now, the present applications have been filed by the applicants/third parties, through their power agent viz., their father Mr.K.Kalaivanan, seeking for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by this Court granting Letters of Administration; and also for revocation of Letters of Administration granted by this Court. 6. The sum and substance of the averments in the affidavits filed in support of the above applicants, are as follows_ 6-1. The applicants herein had filed an application in A.No.2411 of 2013 for impleading themselves as party respondents in the Original Petition in O.P.No.842 of 2012; but, the said application was dismissed by this Court by order dated 11.10.2013 and challenging the said dismissal order, the applicants filed O.S.A. before this Court on 25.11.2013; but, in the meantime, the 1st respondent has hurried up and proceeded with the recording of evidence and obtained an order from this Court on 31.10.2013 granting Letters of Administration in her favour. It is further case of the applicants that the immovable property which is stated to have been bequeathed in favour of the 1st respondent by the deceased P.D.Rajagopalan, by the alleged Will dated 16.06.2000, is his self acquired property. The deceased P.D.Rajagopalan had purchased the said property from one Smt.Krupa Sundari and others under sale deed dated 05.09.1958, registered as Doc.No.1574 of 1958 at the office of the Sub-Registrar, T.Nagar. The deceased P.D.Rajagopalan lived and died as a bachelor. He had five brothers viz., (1)P.D.Rangaswami, (2)P.D.Subramanian, (3)P.D.Ramaswami, (4)P.D.Veeraghavan and (5)P.D.Krishnaswami and all of them died on various dates before 1985. The 1st respondent herein, who is the petitioner in O.P.No.842 of 2012, is one of the children of late P.D.Veeraraghavan, who is one of the brothers of the late P.D.Rajagopalan. The said P.D.Rajagopalan was serving in the Revenue Department and retired as Deputy Tahsildar, Madras Collectorate on 30.04.1978. Neither during his service nor after his retirement, any of his brother's children was looking after him. It was only the grandmother of the applicants viz., Mrs.Pankajam, who was taking care of his needs. Hence, in turn, the deceased P.D.Rajagopalan brought up Mrs.K.Nalini, the daughter of Mrs.Pankajam as his own daughter, though he did not get any formal adoption done. The said K.Nalini was given in marriage to Mr.K.Kalaivanan (father of the applicants herein). It was only the grandmother of the applicants viz., Mrs.Pankajam, who was taking care of his needs. Hence, in turn, the deceased P.D.Rajagopalan brought up Mrs.K.Nalini, the daughter of Mrs.Pankajam as his own daughter, though he did not get any formal adoption done. The said K.Nalini was given in marriage to Mr.K.Kalaivanan (father of the applicants herein). As the deceased P.D.Rajagopalan treated Nalini as his Foster daughter, he had great love and affection towards the applicants herein, as they are the children of Nalini. The said P.D.Rajagopalan did not have any contact with his blood relatives, including the respondents herein during his life time. 6-2. The said P.D.Rajagopalan had the habit of making note of his thoughts, every now and then, in his own handwriting. The said P.D.Rajagopalan himself in several writings of his own acknowledged and expressed his gratitude to Mrs.Pankajam and referred her as an unforgettable person in his life. Even on 16.03.1999, when he was taking treatment in Sundaram Medical Foundation Hospital, he has written and kept a note wherein he has recalled about Mrs.Pangajam and the assistance and care which he was getting from Mrs.Nalini and her husband (father of the applicants herein). Only under those circumstances, the said P.D.Rajagopalan, out of love and affection he had towards Nalini, bequeathed the entire extent of the petition schedule property, which is the subject matter of the present probate proceedings, to and in favour of the mother of the applicants herein viz, Mrs.Nalini on 12.11.1977 by executing a Will and got it registered on 15.07.1978. The execution of the said Will in favour of Nalini is also admitted by the 1st respondent herself. After the execution of the said Will in favour of Nalini, the said P.D.Rajagopalan had also handed over possession of the property to Nalini. Thereafter, in the year 1995, Mrs.Nalini and her husband (the father of the applicants) constructed a small titled house in the said property and also put up a compound wall around the said property. 6-3. At the time when the said P.D.Rajagopalan executed and registered a Will in favour of the mother of the applicants, the 1st applicant was hardly one year old and the 2nd applicant was not at all born. 6-3. At the time when the said P.D.Rajagopalan executed and registered a Will in favour of the mother of the applicants, the 1st applicant was hardly one year old and the 2nd applicant was not at all born. Later, when the children/applicants grew up, the said P.D.Rajagopalan felt that there would be unreasonable and greedy claim over his property by his relatives and they may dispute the Will executed by him in favour of Mrs.Nalini. To settle the issue in his life time and to avoid any litigation on the same, the said P.D.Rajagopalan thought it fit to execute two Gift Settlement Deeds in respect of the subject property vide two Documents dated 24.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 in favour of the 1st applicant and 2nd applicant respectively, so as to convey the title and ownership to them during his lifetime itself. The said two documents in favour of the applicants therein were registered as Doc.No.3555 & 3556 of 2000 respectively, before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam. The said documents of Gift Settlement Deeds dated 24.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 executed by the said P.D.Rajagopalan in favour of the applicants are true and genuine, as they were executed purely out of the love and affection, which he had towards the applicants. The said P.D.Rajagopalan was treating the applicants for all practical purposes as his grand-children and even on his demise on 06.11.2000, the last rites and obsequies were performed for him only by the 1st applicant herein. Neither the 1st respondent nor any other respondents herein had even attended the funeral of P.D.Rajagopalan nor paid their last respects to him. 6-4. Only after the demise of P.D.Rajagopalan, the 1st respondent herein, who had knowledge about the Will of P.D.Rajagopalan dated 12.11.1977, in favour of Mrs. Nalini (which stands registered on 15.07.1978 as Document No.108 of 1978 with the office of the District-Registrar, North Madras), wanted to lay her unholy hands on the said property and with the said mala fide motive, came to the residence of the applicants on 04.04.2001, along with two other strangers, one of whom claimed himself to be Sub-Inspector of Police, Sembium Police Station, and started enquiring about the whereabouts of P.D.Rajagopalan. Later, when the father of the applicants herein found that the person who accompanied the 1st respondent to the house of the applicants on 04.04.2001 posing himself as Sub-Inspector of Sembium Police Station is not really a police personnel, he lodged a compliant with R-3, Ashok Nagar Police Station. Later Police Officials from the Ice House Police Station called the applicants for enquiry and the applicants attended the enquiry before the Police Station and produced all the documents relating to the death of late P.D.Rajagopalan and the Police were also satisfied over that. 6-5. During July-2001, when the father of the applicants made a causal visit to the property, which is subject matter of the probate proceedings, he found that preparations for construction of a building in the subject property were going on by and at the instance of the 1st respondent and her men. When the same was objected to, the 1st respondent lodged a police complaint against the applicants before the Central Crime Branch Team-XI, Egmore. On enquiry, the said complaint was closed. 6-6. Thereafter, the applicants herein filed a suit against the 1st respondent her husband and one of her henchman, before the XIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.866 of 2002, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from in any manner interfering with or disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property by the applicants. Along with the said suit, the applicants also have filed an application for interim injunction in I.A.No.2692 of 2002 in O.S.No.866 of 2002 and the same was granted in their favour on 14.02.2002. The interim injunction was also made absolute on 26.03.2002 and the suit is pending. Even after coming to know as early as in 2001 itself about the execution of the valid gift settlement deeds by the said P.D.Rajagopalan on 24.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 in favour of the applicants, without challenging the same in a manner known to law, the 1st respondent clandestinely approached the Revenue Officials with a request for cancellation of Patta issued in favour of the applicants as early as on 15.09.2002. Without conducting proper enquiry on the application for cancellation of patta, an order was passed by the District Revenue Officer, Chennai District vide his proceedings No.J3/19598/2009 dated 04.08.2010, ordering cancellation of patta issued in favour of the applicants on 15.09.2002. Without conducting proper enquiry on the application for cancellation of patta, an order was passed by the District Revenue Officer, Chennai District vide his proceedings No.J3/19598/2009 dated 04.08.2010, ordering cancellation of patta issued in favour of the applicants on 15.09.2002. Challenging the same, the applicants filed W.P.No.21511 of 2010 before this Court and in the said writ petition, an order was passed by this Court on 28.09.2010 directing the Tahsildar of Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk to complete enquiry and pass final orders uninfluenced by the findings of the District Revenue Officer. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, an enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar and thereafter, the Tahsildar passed an order for transfer of the registry for the above said property to be effected in favour of the applicants herein and for issue of an extract of Town Survey Land Register in favour of the applicants. After duly effecting the necessary changes, a Certificate of Land Register was also issued to the applicants on 15.03.2012 incorporating the names of the applicants as the owners of the property, which is subject property of the present probate proceedings. The 1st respondent, who claims the existence of an unregistered Will alleged to have been executed by the said late P.D.Rajagopalan in her favour on 16.06.2000, had kept quite for a eleven long years and having failed to appear before the Tahsildar for enquiry or produce any such documents before him, has just with a view to get a seal of approval from the Court for her forged document by abuse of process of Court, filed the Original Petition in O.P.No.842 of 2012 for grant of Letters of Administration for the said forged Will dated 16.06.2000, during the pending of the enquiry before the Tahsildar, and proceeded with the same hastily without even adding the other class-II heirs of late P.D.Rajagopalan as parties to the probate proceedings. 6-7. Only in order to oppose the grant of Letters of Administration of the said forged Will, the applicants sought to be impleaded themselves as parties/respondents by filing Application No.2411 of 2013 in O.P.No.842 of 2012. The said application was dismissed on 11.10.2013. After the dismissal of the said application, the applicants have filed OSA. 6-7. Only in order to oppose the grant of Letters of Administration of the said forged Will, the applicants sought to be impleaded themselves as parties/respondents by filing Application No.2411 of 2013 in O.P.No.842 of 2012. The said application was dismissed on 11.10.2013. After the dismissal of the said application, the applicants have filed OSA. However, in the meantime, taking advantage of the dismissal of the said application, the 1st respondent obtained an order from this Court granting Letters of Administration in her favour on 31.10.2013, by suppressing the real fact that the property, which is stated to have been bequeathed in her favour, did not form part of the estate of the deceased P.D.Rajagopalan at the time of his death. Now, taking advantage of the grant of Letters of Administration, the 1st respondent, who failed in all her attempts to dispossess the applicants from the petition mentioned property for more than a decade, is now trying to create all the troubles to the applicants. Hence, the present applications have been filed by the applicants through their power agent (father), for the reliefs as stated supra. 7-1. The 1st respondent has filed a common counter in both the above applications, inter alia, contending that the testator P.D.Rajagopalan is her uncle and he is the only brother of the 1st respondent's father P.D.Veeraghavan Iyengar. Her uncle P.D.Rajagopalan died as bachelor without any issues. During his life time, he executed a Will on 16.06.2000 bequeathing the property owned by him in favour of the 1st respondent. Subsequent to the death of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan on 06.11.2000, proceedings were initiated for proving the Will in common form by way of Letters of Administration in O.P.No.842 of 2012 before this Court. In the said OP, this Court by considering the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent as well as one of the attesting witness viz., R.Uma, granted Letters of Administration in favour of the 1st respondent on 31.10.2013. In fact, this is the second round of litigation. In the said OP, this Court by considering the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent as well as one of the attesting witness viz., R.Uma, granted Letters of Administration in favour of the 1st respondent on 31.10.2013. In fact, this is the second round of litigation. Earlier the very same applicants herein filed Application No.2411 of 2013 to implead themselves as parties to the Original Petition No.842 of 2012; but, the said application was dismissed by this Court on 11.10.2013; challenging the dismissal of the impleading application, the applicants had preferred OSA, which was also dismissed as withdrawn; with the same set of facts, the present applications have been filed only to harass the 1st respondent from enjoying the property which was bequeathed in her favour by her late uncle P.D.Rajagopalan. The Will executed by the testator P.D.Rajagopalan has been duly proved in the manner known to law and the 1st respondent, being the only legatee, is entitled to the property covered under the said Will. The property bequeathed by the late P.D.Rajagopalan in favour of the 1st respondent under the Will is his self acquired property and as such, he has every right to execute the Will in favour of the 1st respondent. Subsequent to the death of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan, the entire records which were stored by him in his bachelor quarters at Lloyds Colony, Royapettah, were stolen by the Power Agent of the applicants herein; thus, by illegal means, the applicants are holding the custody of the entire records of P.D.Rajagopalan. It is denied by the 1st respondent that P.D.Rajagopalan had five brothers. In fact, the testator P.D.Rajagopalan had only one brother viz., P.D.Veeraghavan Iyengar, (father of the respondents herein). 7-2. It is further stated in the counter by the 1st respondent that in fact, the 1st respondent has been regularly visiting P.D.Rajagopalan and enquiring about his health on regular basis at his bachelor quarters at Lloyds Colony, Royapettah, and in such usual process, when the 1st respondent visited his quarters, she came to know through his neighbors Mr.Chinnadurai that her uncle P.D.Rajagopalan passed away on 06.11.2000 and his body was taken away by the applicants' Power Agent and their family members and cremated. The 1st respondent's uncle P.D.Rajagopalan is an orthodox Iyengar and the community of the said Mrs.Pankajam is not known to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent's uncle P.D.Rajagopalan is an orthodox Iyengar and the community of the said Mrs.Pankajam is not known to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent's uncle P.D.Rajagopalan could not have brought up Nalini as his own daughter, since Nalini had her own father through biological means. 7-3. It is further stated in the counter by the 1st respondent that subsequent to the death of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan, the applicants' Power Agent (their father) and their family members have barged into the bachelors quarters, where the 1st respondent's uncle P.D.Rajagopalan was living, and have taken away all the records and have conveniently created records to show as though P.D.Rajagopalan was close to their family. The alleged Will dated 12.11.1977 said to have been executed in favour applicants' mother Nalini, was duly cancelled by P.D.Rajagopalan, since it was forcibly, on the 10th day of the death of 1st respondent's father P.D.Veeraraghava Iyengar, created and after realizing that it was forcibly obtained, P.D.Rajagopalan had duly cancelled the same by executing a fresh Will dated 16.06.2000 in favour of the 1st respondent which has also been proved in the manner known to law. In any event, the Will came into effect only after the death of the testator and possession could not have been handed over immediately on execution of the Will as alleged by the applicants. The applicants cannot claim that they are the grandsons of 1st respondent's uncle P.D.Rajagopalan. The very fact that the death of 1st respondent's uncle P.D.Rajagopalan on 06.11.2000 has never been communicated to any of his relatives including the 1st respondent herein, would show the intention of the applicants to grab the property bequeathed in favour of the 1st respondent by her uncle P.D.Rajagopalan. The applicants are not in possession of the suit property; but, by making a fraudulent representation before the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.866 of 2002, the applicants obtained an ex-parte interim order. If at all there is any gift settlement deed in favour of the applicants executed by P.D.Rajagopalan, the applicants ought to have filed a suit for declaration of their title; but, on the contrary, the applicants have chosen to file a suit only for bare injunction in O.S.No.866 of 2002. If at all there is any gift settlement deed in favour of the applicants executed by P.D.Rajagopalan, the applicants ought to have filed a suit for declaration of their title; but, on the contrary, the applicants have chosen to file a suit only for bare injunction in O.S.No.866 of 2002. Having failed to do so, the applicants are now working out all the third degree methods to knock away the property which has been rightfully and lawfully owned by the 1st respondent by virtue of the order granting in the Letters of Administration in her favour. 7-4. It is also stated in the counter that with respect to the Patta issued by the Revenue Officials, the same has been duly cancelled pursuant to an order passed by the District Revenue Officer, Collectorate, Chennai, on an application submitted by the 1st respondent for the cancellation of Patta. On 04.08.2010, the District Revenue Officer has passed an order cancelling the Patta citing that the proceedings are pending before the Court and therefore, the Patta could not be issued and rightfully cancelled the same. The said order of the District Revenue Officer was challenged by the applicants herein by way of W.P.No.21511 of 2010 before this Court and this Court passed an order on 28.09.2010 directing both the parties to appear before the Tahsildar for an enquiry and the Tahsildar was directed to pass orders after conducting an enquiry. But, the Tahsildar without conducting proper enquiry has passed an order for issuing patta in favour of the applicants and the said order of the Tahsildar has been challenged by the 1st respondent by way of an appeal before the District Revenue Officer on 20.06.2012; thereafter, the District Revenue Officer has again called for an enquiry, which is now being challenged by the applicants by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.26967 of 2012, which is now pending before this Court. But, suppressing all these materials facts, the applicants have approached this Court seeking to revoke the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the 1st respondent. Thus, the 1st respondent sought for dismissal of the above applications. 8. The applicants have filed a detailed rejoinder to the counter filed by the 1st respondent, denying the allegations made therein. 9. But, suppressing all these materials facts, the applicants have approached this Court seeking to revoke the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the 1st respondent. Thus, the 1st respondent sought for dismissal of the above applications. 8. The applicants have filed a detailed rejoinder to the counter filed by the 1st respondent, denying the allegations made therein. 9. I have carefully heard the submissions made by Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the materials available on record. 10. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the testator P.D.Rajagopalan had five brothers and two sisters and the respondents herein are the children of one P.D.Veeraraghavan Iyengar, who is one of the brothers of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan. The testator P.D.Rajagopalan was brought by one Mrs.G.Pankajam, grandmother of the applicants, from his childhood. The testator P.D.Rajagopalan lived as a bachelor. The mother of the applicants viz., Nalini (daughter of said Mrs.G.Pankajam) is the foster daughter of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan. Since the birth of the applicants, the testator P.D.Rajagopalan was treating the applicants as his grandchildren. During his lifetime, the testator P.D.Rajagopalan never had any contact with his relatives. To support this contention, the learned counsel for the applicants has invited the attention of this Court various documents, particularly Pension Nomination Form as well as his Bank Pass Book (SB A/c), which he was holding with Indian Bank. In the Pension Nomination Form, the names of the applicants were shown as nominees. In the nomination for SB A/c, which was given by the P.D.Rajagopalan to the Indian Bank on 24.10.1986, the name of the 1st applicant-K.Karthik was mentioned as nominee. 11. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the testator P.D.Rajagopalan was in the habit of making note of his thoughts, now and then, in his own writing and in his several notes, he expressed his gratitude to Mrs.Pankajam (grandmother of the applicants). In this regard, the learned counsel for the applicants invited the attention of this Court to various notes written by the testator P.D.Rajagopalan in support of his contention. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that on 12.11.1977, the testator P.D.Rajagopalan had executed a registered Will in favour of the mother of the applicants viz., Nalini and the same was registered on 15.07.1978. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that on 12.11.1977, the testator P.D.Rajagopalan had executed a registered Will in favour of the mother of the applicants viz., Nalini and the same was registered on 15.07.1978. But, subsequently, P.D.Rajagopalan, who had no conduct with his relatives, felt that there would be unreasonable claim over his property by his relatives and they may dispute the Will executed by him in favour of the applicants' mother Nalini; hence, to settle the issue and to avoid any litigation, the testator P.D.Rajagopalan executed two Gift Settlement Deeds dated 24.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 in favour of the applicants respectively and the said settlement deeds were registered as Document Nos.3555 & 3556 of 2000 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam. After the demise of P.D.Rajagopalan, the 1st respondent has created a forged Will dated 16.06.2000 and started to claim right over the property. In the year 2002 itself, when the applicants filed a suit in O.S.No.866 of 2002 before the XIII Assistance City Civil Court, Chennai, for injunction restraining them from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the applicants, the 1st respondent is well aware of the gift settlement deeds executed by late P.D.Rajagopalan in favour of the applicants. Under such circumstances, the 1st respondent ought to have impleaded the applicants herein in the Original Petition, which was filed for grant of Letters of Administration, as respondents. But, suppressing all the materials facts, the 1st respondent has filed the Original Petition and obtained the order granting Letters of Administration in her favour from this Court. 12. The learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the documents produced on the side of the applicants would show that the testator P.D.Rajagopalan was all along under the care of the applicants' family and the subject property was already conveyed in favour of the applicants by the testator P.D.Rajagopalan; therefore, the applicants have acquired interest in the estate of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan. But, they have not been impleaded as parties in the Original Petition in O.P.No.842 of 2012 filed by the 1st respondent for grant of Letters of Administration. But, they have not been impleaded as parties in the Original Petition in O.P.No.842 of 2012 filed by the 1st respondent for grant of Letters of Administration. Hence, the applicants herein filed an application in A.No.2411 of 2013 in O.P.No.842 of 2012 to implead themselves as parties; but, the said application was dismissed by order dated 11.10.2013 only on the ground that the applicant cannot challenge the title in the probate proceedings; but the question as to whether the applicants herein are having caveatable interest in the property stated to have been bequeathed in favour of the first respondent under the Will dated 16.06.2000 has not been dealt with by this Court while dismissing the impleading application. Hence, the dismissal of the impleading application cannot be a bar for this Court to consider the present application filed by the applicants to revoke the grant of letter of administration in favour of first respondent. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgment reported in (1990) 3 SCC 333 (Elizabeth Antony Vs. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera). 13. Moreover, against the dismissal of the impleading application, the applicants have filed OSA.No.407 of 2013 and the said OSA came up for hearing on 26.06.2014. Since the Letters of Administration was already granted on 31.10.2013 in favour of the 1st respondent pending the OSA, the applicants had withdrawn the said OSA with a liberty to proceed with the present application, which was filed by them for revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration, and the applicants made necessary endorsement in the said OSA. Based on the said endorsement, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said OSA, with a liberty to the applicants to pursue the revocation application. 14. That apart, by inviting the attention of this Court to Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that probate of the Will / Letters of Administration can be revoked on the ground of just cause. 14. That apart, by inviting the attention of this Court to Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that probate of the Will / Letters of Administration can be revoked on the ground of just cause. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that since the gift settlement deeds have already been executed by the late P.D.Rajagopalan in favour of the applicants, now grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the 1st respondent has become inoperative; therefore, the case will fall under Section 263(d) of the Indian Succession Act; since the 1st respondent has suppressed so many material facts with regard to various disputes pending between the applicants and the 1st respondent, with regard to the subject property, which is subject matter of the Will dated 16.06.2000, on the ground of suppression of material facts also, the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the 1st respondent is liable to be revoked. Further, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the alleged Will dated 16.06.2000, a reference was made to the earlier Will dated 12.11.1977, which was executed in favour of the mother of the applicants viz., Nalini. This factual aspect would clearly show that these applicants are having caveatable interest over the subject property. Therefore, the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the 1st respondent is liable to be revoked. In this regard, the learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1971 Gujarat 115 (V.58 C 19) (Khachar Rana Laxman and another Vs. Dhadhal Hathiyabhai Mulubhai and another) and 2005(1) CTC 11 (Janaki Devi Vs. R.Vasanthi and others). 15. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the applicants are the strangers and they are no way connected with the testator P.D.Rajagopalan. In fact, all the ground raised now by the applicants in the present application for revocation of Letters of Administration, have already been raised by them in the earlier application in A.No.2411 of 2013 filed by them for impleading them as parties; considering the entire averments made in the application filed in support of the impleading application, this Court dismissed the said impleading application and the OSA filed against the dismissal of impleading application was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, once again the applicants cannot agitate the same grounds in the present application for revocation of Letters of Administration granted in favour of the 1st respondent. 16. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent has further submitted that no case has been made out by the applicants under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act for revocation of the Letters of Administration. It is incorrect to state that the testator P.D.Rajagopalan was under the care of the applicants' family. The 1st respondent is testator's brother's daughter. The applicants do not have any caveatable interest over the subject property. The 1st respondent has not suppressed any material facts. The 1st respondent filed the Original Application No.842 of 2012 only in accordance with Form 56, 57, 58 of the Original Side Rules. When that being so, the question of suppressing the materials facts does not arise in this case. Further, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent by inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in the application, submitted that the applicants have challenged only the title of the property; therefore, proper remedy for them is only to file a civil suit and not the application for revocation of letter of administration granted this Court, especially when the application filed by them for impleading them as parties was already dismissed by this Court considering all the grounds raised herein. 17. In view of the submission made on either side, the following questions fall for consideration- (1) When this Court has already dismissed the application filed by the applicants to implead them in the Original Petition for grant of Letters of Administration, whether they can maintain the present application for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted by this Court in favour of the 1st respondent? (2) Whether the applicants have made out any case under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act to revoke the Letters of Administration? 18-1. Question No.1:- Originally the applicants herein filed an application in A.No.2411 of 2013 seeking to implead themselves as respondents in the Original Petition stating that they are having caveatable interest in the estate of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan and they produced number of documents in support of their case. 18-1. Question No.1:- Originally the applicants herein filed an application in A.No.2411 of 2013 seeking to implead themselves as respondents in the Original Petition stating that they are having caveatable interest in the estate of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan and they produced number of documents in support of their case. But, this Court has dismissed the said application on 11.10.2013, only on the ground that the applicants cannot question the title over the property in the probate proceedings and not on any other ground. The relevant portion of the order dated 11.10.2013 passed by this Court in A.No.2411 of 2013 reads as follows_ "6. This is resisted by the respondent herein and the petitioner in the original petition, who has filed a detailed counter, which of course, upto para-18 is not relevant for repudiating the claim on facts which is not required for the disposal of the present application. Para-19 of the counter affidavit is relied upon by Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the respondent that no caveatable interest is there for the impleading applicants and, therefore, the application has to be rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon Vs. Hardayal Singh Dhillon & ors [ 2007(11) SCC 357 ], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while relying upon its earlier decision in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka Vs. Jasjit Singh & ors ( 1993 (2) SCR 454 ), and pleaded that in a probate, the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under the Indian Succession Act is not competent to determine the question of title to the suit property and for other issues relating to title. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "11. In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka Vs. Jasjit Singh and ors (1993) 2 SCC 507 , this Court while upholding the above views and following the earlier decisions of this Court as well as of other High Courts in India observed in paragraph 15 at page 515 which runs as under:- "11. In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka Vs. Jasjit Singh and ors (1993) 2 SCC 507 , this Court while upholding the above views and following the earlier decisions of this Court as well as of other High Courts in India observed in paragraph 15 at page 515 which runs as under:- "11. In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Ors., [1993] 2 SCC 507, this Court while upholding the above views and following the earlier decisions of this Court as well as of other High Courts in India observed in paragraph 15 at page 515 which runs as under :- "In Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamta Devi this Court held that the court of probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the probate court. Therefore, the only issue in a probate proceeding relates to the genuineness and due execution of the will and the court itself is under duty to determine it and perverse the original will in its custody. The Succession Act is a self-contained code insofar as the question of making an application for probate, grant or refusal of probate or an appeal carried against the decision of the probate court. This is clearly manifested in the fascicule of the provisions of the Act. The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the probate court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other ways. The grant of probate with a copy of the will annexed establishes conclusively as to the appointment of the executor and the valid execution of the will. Thus, it does no more than establish the factum of the will and the legal character of the executor. Probate court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself". (Emphasis supplied). 7. In view of the above binding precedent, the present application filed by the implead applicants challenging the title cannot be sustained. Thus, it does no more than establish the factum of the will and the legal character of the executor. Probate court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself". (Emphasis supplied). 7. In view of the above binding precedent, the present application filed by the implead applicants challenging the title cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this implead application is dismissed." A reading of the above order passed by this Court would show that the impleading application was dismissed only on the ground that the impleading application challenging the title cannot be sustained. The said impleading application was not dismissed on the ground that the applicants do not have any caveatable interest over the subject property. 18-2. Further, aggrieved by the said dismissal order passed in impleading application, the applicants have filed O.S.A.No.407 of 2013. But, even before the said OSA came up for admission, the 1st respondent has obtained Letters of Administration in her favour on 31.10.2013 from this Court. Hence, the applicants made an endorsement in the said OSA seeking to withdraw the OSA. Based on the endorsement of withdrawal, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said OSA on 26.06.2014. The order passed by the Division Bench reads as follows_ "In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, this Original Side Appeal is dismissed, as having been withdrawn. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the appellants to seek their remedies, if any, before the appropriate forum, in the manner known to law. No costs. M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are closed." Therefore, in my considered opinion, since the impleading application was not dismissed on any one of the grounds, which are available to the applicants under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, the dismissal of the impleading application cannot be a bar to file the application for revocation of Letters of Administration. Moreover, the applicants have been given liberty in OSA to pursue the revocation application. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the present applications are maintainable. 18-3. In this regard, a useful reference could be made in the judgment reported in (1990)3 SCC 333 (Elizabeth Antony Vs. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera), wherein it has been held as follows_ " 9. Moreover, the applicants have been given liberty in OSA to pursue the revocation application. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the present applications are maintainable. 18-3. In this regard, a useful reference could be made in the judgment reported in (1990)3 SCC 333 (Elizabeth Antony Vs. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera), wherein it has been held as follows_ " 9. The learned counsel, however, lastly submitted that the petitioner inspite of having substantial interest in the estate is losing her right, to prove that the alleged will by Miss Zoe Enid Browne is not a genuine one and that it is a fictitious one. We must point out that by granting a probate, the court is not deciding the disputes to the title. Even with regard to a probate granted, it can be revoked as provided under Section 263 of the Act in any one of the cases mentioned therein. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Sub Court and the High Court regarding the caveatable interest will come in the petitioner's way in seeking revocation of the grant of probate. It is needless to say that the findings regarding the caveatable interest of the petitioner have a limited effect and are relevant only to the extent of granting of probate. But they cannot deprive his right, if he has any, to invoke Section 263 of the Act and it is upto the petitioner to satisfy the Court." A reading of the dictum laid down in the above said judgment would show that even if any finding regarding the caveatable interest was made by the Court that will not come in the applicants' way in seeking revocation of Letters of Administration, since the finding regarding caveatable interest have a limited effect, which are relevant only to the extent of granting of probate. When that being the legal position, the present case stands in better footing because absolutely there is no finding with regard to the caveatable interest of the applicants in the property in the dismissal order dated 11.10.2013 passed in A.No.2411 of 2013, which was filed by the applicants to implead them as respondents in the Original Petition. 18-4. When that being the legal position, the present case stands in better footing because absolutely there is no finding with regard to the caveatable interest of the applicants in the property in the dismissal order dated 11.10.2013 passed in A.No.2411 of 2013, which was filed by the applicants to implead them as respondents in the Original Petition. 18-4. Further, in my consideration, since the impleading application filed by the applicants was dismissed by this Court only on the ground that the applicants cannot question the title of the property in probate proceedings, it does not mean that this Court has shut down their right to file the application to revoke the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the 1st respondent. When the grounds mentioned under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act are available to the applicants, they can maintain the application for revocation of the Letters of Administration, even after the dismissal of the impleading application. 18-5. According to the applicants, the registered Will dated 12.11.1977 executed in favour of the mother of the applicants viz., Nalini is a true and genuine one; the alleged Will dated 26.06.2000 said to have been executed in favour of the 1st respondent is a forged Will created by the 1st respondent. Further, in the Will dated 26.06.2000 a reference was also made to the registered Will dated 12.11.1977 executed in favour of the applicants. All these factual aspects found in this case would go to show that the applicants are having interest over the estate of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan. 18-6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that since the applicants are not the blood relatives to the testator P.D.Rajagopalan, they cannot have any caveatable interest in the estate of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan. But, I am not inclined to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, since several documents filed on the side of the applicants would show the close relationship between the testator P.D.Rajagopalan and the applicants' family, for a quite long time. Therefore, in my considered opinion, as the applicants are having a caveatable interest in the estate of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan, the applicants are entitled to file the present applications for the reliefs as stated supra. Therefore, in my considered opinion, as the applicants are having a caveatable interest in the estate of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan, the applicants are entitled to file the present applications for the reliefs as stated supra. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment reported, which was relied upon by the learned counsel counsel for the applicants, in AIR 1973 Cal 433 (Sm.Annapurna Kumar Vs. Subodh Chandra Kumar), wherein it has been held as follows_ "It is well settled now that any interest, however slightly, and even the bare possibility of an interest, is sufficient to entitle a party to oppose a testamentary paper. Even in a case where the person is not entitled to get a compulsory citation, but the citation is discretionary, the absence of citation to such a person, also would invalidate the grant in certain circumstances." From the dictum laid down in the above said judgment, it could be seen that even if there is a slightest interest in the property that is sufficient for a party to oppose the testamentary paper. In the instant case, the evidence on record would show that the applicants are certainly having caveatable interest in the estate of the testator P.D.Rajagopalan, they are entitled seek revocation of Letters of Administration. 19-1. Question No.2:- It is the case of the applicants that the testator P.D.Rajagopalan was brought up by the applicants' grandmother Mrs.Pankajam and in turn, out of gratitude to Pankajam, the testator P.D.Rajagopalan brought up her daughter Nalini (mother of the applicants) and he had executed a Will on 12.11.1977 in favour of said Nalini. But, subsequently, fearing about the claim over his property by his relatives, the testator P.D.Rajagopalan has executed two gift settlement deeds on 24.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 in favour of the applicants, which were registered as Document Nos.3555 & 3556 of 2000. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the applicants by inviting the attention of this Court to various documents such as pension nomination form, Savings Bank Account nomination form and personal notes written by late P.D.Rajagopalan, has made an elaborate argument to show that the late P.D.Rajagopalan was under the care of the applicants' family. Earlier a Will dated 12.11.1977 was executed in favour of the mother of the applicants viz., Nalini. The said Will was referred in the alleged Will dated 26.06.2000. Earlier a Will dated 12.11.1977 was executed in favour of the mother of the applicants viz., Nalini. The said Will was referred in the alleged Will dated 26.06.2000. The 1st respondent has also not denied the Will dated 12.11.1977 executed in favour of the applicants' mother. 19-2. Under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, the grant of probate or letters of administration can be revoked or annulled for just cause. As per Sub-clause (b) to Section 263 of the Act, if the grant of probate or Letters of Administration was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or by concealing from the Court something material to the case, the same can be revoked. In the instant case, though the 1st respondent was aware of the Will dated 12.11.1977 executed by the testator in favour of the mother of the applicants as well as the settlement deeds executed in favour of the applicants, the 1st respondent has suppressed the same in the Original Petition proceedings for grant of Letters of Administration. As per sub-clause (d) to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, if the grant of Letters of Administration has become useless and inoperative through circumstances, the same can be revocked. In the instant case, according to the first respondent, Will was executed by the testator P.D.Rajagopalan on 26.06.2000 in her favour; but subsequent to 26.06.2000, two gift settlement deeds were executed on 24.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 in favour of the applicants. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the applicants, even if the said Will dated 26.06.2000 is taken as genuine Will, since subsequently the testator P.D.Rajagopalan has executed two settlement deeds on 24.08.2000 and 25.08.2000 in favour of the applicants, the grant of Letters of Administration has become useless and inoperative. Therefore, under Sub-clause (d) to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, the applicants are entitled to revocation of the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the 1st respondent. I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants. Hence, the applicants are entitled for the prayers sought for in the present applications. 19-3. Therefore, under Sub-clause (d) to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, the applicants are entitled to revocation of the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the 1st respondent. I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants. Hence, the applicants are entitled for the prayers sought for in the present applications. 19-3. It is yet another submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that though the alleged Will said to have been executed in favour of the 1st respondent on 16.06.2000 and the testator P.D.Rajagopalan died on 06.11.2000, the Original Petition seeking to grant Letters of Administration was filed only in the year 2012. There is inordinate delay of 12 years in filing the Original Petition for Letters of Administration. Absolutely, no explanation was given in the affidavit filed in support of the Original Petition by the 1st respondent for the delay in filing the Original Petition for grant of Letters of Administration. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the applicants, on the ground of delay also the grant of Letters of Administration is liable to be revoked. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment reported in 2005(1) CTC 11 [Janaki Devi Vs. R.Vasanthi and others] and the relevant portion in the said judgment reads as follows:- "27. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Order 25, Rule 9 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules, is not complied with in this case, and the non-explanation of the delay, with materials should be construed as one of the unavoidable circumstances, to cast shadow upon the Will, to eclipse the same. Order 25, Rule 9 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules says: "In any case where probate or letters of administration is for first time applied for after the lapse of three years from the death of the deceased, the reason for the delay shall be explained in the petition." In the case on hand, it cannot be said, that this requirement is not complied with, since paragraph-7 of the petition gives some explanation, for the delay. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, that during the relevant period viz., from September 1984 to June 1989, the plaintiff/first respondent could not have been in bed rest, since she was attending the Court in the connected proceedings, fails to inspire us, to reject the explanation offered, considering the fact that the petitioner had proclaimed and propounded the Will, as and when occasion had arisen for her to do so. Admittedly, this petition or plaint has been filed, after three years from the date of death of the testator, since she died on 22.6.1981. If the plaintiff had been silent, not even whispering about the Will, when occasion had arisen, then the inaction on the part of the plaintiff for more than three years in not taking the steps, to probate the Will, could be viewed with suspicion. In this case, admittedly, on the basis of the Will, probably thinking that the Will need not be probated, a suit has been filed by the petitioner, before the District Munsif Court, Villupruam against one Kannan, who was the tenant of the property, for certain reliefs and in those proceedings, this Will was exhibited as Ex.A 1, thereby showing, the plaintiff had taken action, immediately, to preserve the property, over which right has been given, indicating that the plaintiff had no intention, to suppress the Will or conceal the same, from the eyes of others. True, ultimately the suit has been dismissed on the ground, that the Will could not be acted upon, as it was not probated and that is why the present case is filed, though not immediately, but within the reasonable time, explaining the delay. As held by the Division bench of this Court, in Ammu Balachandran's case, if the execution of the Will is proved, the delay in taking steps to probate the Will, will not loom large, since Order 25, Rule 9 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules has not prescribed any period of limitation and probably, it aims to give explanation alone. The dictum laid down in the above said judgment would show that as per Order 25 Rule 9 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, if an application is filed for probate or letters of administration, after the lapse of three years from the death of the testator, the reason for the delay shall be explained in the petition. But, in the instant case, absolutely no explanation was given by the 1st respondent for the delay in filing the Original Petition seeking to grant Letters of Administration. I am of the opinion, where an unregistered Will is sought to be proved after lapse of 12 years from the date of death of testator, the delay has to be properly explained in the petition. But, in the instant case, since no explanation was given by the 1st respondent for the delay in filing the original petition, on the ground of delay also the Letters of Administration is liable to be revoked. For the foregoing reasons, the above applications are allowed as prayed for and the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the 1st respondent by order dated 31.10.2013 is revoked.