JUDGMENT P.C. 1. By this petition filed under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the petitioner seeks revocation of the letters of administration dated 20th September, 2013 passed by this court in favour of the respondent. For the purpose of appreciating the controversy involved, it would be appropriate to refer to the family tree which is annexed at Ex.1 to the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent. 2. Mr. Karamchand Sharma had two sons viz. Krishnamohan Sharma and Krishnagopal Sharma. It is not in dispute that Mr. Karamchand Sharma had left a Will dated 16th January, 2005 in respect of which the probate has been granted by this court on 18th September, 2006 in favour of the executor of the said Will Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma. On 13th November, 2012 Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma expired leaving behind him Mrs. Sangeeta and two daughters viz. Shikha and Shivani Sharma. 3. Mr. Krishnamohan Sharma, another son of the deceased Mr. Karamchand Sharma expired leaving behind him widow Mrs. Hemlata Sharma, two daughters viz. Poonam and Pooja Sharma and one son Rahul Sharma. 4. On demise of Krishnagopal Sharma, who died intestate, his widow Mrs. Sangeeta filed a Testamentary Petition (403 of 2013) in this court inter alia praying for letters of administration in respect of the estate of Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma. On 20th September, 2013, this court has granted letters of administration in respect of the estate of Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma in favour of Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma. 5. Mr. Rahul Sharma, who is one of the son of Mr. Krishnamohan Sharma has filed this petition under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act for revocation of the letters of administration dated 20th September, 2013 granted in favour of Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma on the ground that under the Will of the deceased Karamchand Sharma dated 16th January, 2005 the Flat No. 16 situated at Thakur Ghatkopar CHS Ltd., Plot No.18, Gamdevi Lane, Sanghani Estate, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400 086 was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner herein and thus he ought to have been cited by Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma in the petition for letters of administration in respect of the estate of her deceased husband Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma. It is submitted that though under the said Will dated 16th January, 2005, of the deceased grandfather Mr. Karamchand Sharma, the said flat no. 16 was bequeathed in favour of petitioner, the said Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma in the petition for letters of administration in respect of the estate of her deceased husband Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma. It is submitted that though under the said Will dated 16th January, 2005, of the deceased grandfather Mr. Karamchand Sharma, the said flat no. 16 was bequeathed in favour of petitioner, the said Mrs. Sangeeta obtained the letters of administration fraudulently by not citing the petitioner in the said petition and by concealing these facts. It is submitted that since Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma was not the owner in respect of the said flat as the same was not bequeathed by Mr. Karamchand Sharma, no letters of administration could be obtained in respect of the said flat by Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on section 263 (b), (c) and would submit that since the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or by concealing from the court, the fact that flat No.16 was bequeathed in favour of petitioner and not in favour of the deceased husband of Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma and since grant was also obtained by means of untrue allegations of the fact, such grant of letters of administration shall be revoked under section 263 (b) and (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Basanti Devi vs. Raviprakash R.Jaiswal in Appeal (Civil) No. 4896 of 2007 in support of his submission that since the judgment in testamentary petition for letters of administration granted in favour of Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma was in rem and since the petitioner had no knowledge about such proceedings and he not having been served with any citation, he is entitled to file an application for revocation of probate on the grounds available under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 6. Mr. Vora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand submits that under the Will of Mr. Karamchand Sharma executed on 16th January, 2005, the said Flat No. 16 was bequeathed in favour of Krishnagopal Sharma exclusively and on his demise, his widow Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma was entitled to obtain letters of administration in respect of the estate of Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma inclusive of the flat in question. Karamchand Sharma executed on 16th January, 2005, the said Flat No. 16 was bequeathed in favour of Krishnagopal Sharma exclusively and on his demise, his widow Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma was entitled to obtain letters of administration in respect of the estate of Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma inclusive of the flat in question. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner did not fall in class I category of the deceased Krishnagopal Sharma and was falling atmost in class II, he was rightly not cited in the Testamentary Petition No. 403 of 2013 filed by Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma and he being not having any caveatable interest of any nature whatsoever or even slightest interest in the estate, question of citing him or service of any citation on him did not arise. 7. Mr. Vora, learned counsel then submits that since in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition, the petitioner has raised an issue of interpretation of the Will of Mr. Karamchand Sharma, such exercise cannot be permitted in petition under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act and such interpretation can be urged only in a separate suit. Learned counsel submits that in any event, the petitioner has claimed title adverse to the title of any deceased in the flat in question and has pleaded that Krishnagopal Sharma himself was not the owner in respect of the said flat, such issue could not be decided by the testamentary court. 8. On perusal of the family tree and the Will dated 16th January, 2005 and on perusal of the petition filed under section 263 by the petitioner herein, it is clear that the petitioner is also claiming the title in respect of the said flat under the said Will dated 16th January, 2005 executed by Mr. Karamchand Sharma in respect of which probate has been granted by this court on 18th September, 2006 adverse to the title of the said deceased in the property in question. In my view, even if any caveat would have been filed, petitioner could not have maintained such caveat on such ground. 9. On perusal of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition, it indicates that it is case of the petitioner that under the Will of the deceased Mr. Karamchand Sharma, Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma was not the legatee in respect of the said flat but the said flat was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner exclusively. 10. 9. On perusal of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the petition, it indicates that it is case of the petitioner that under the Will of the deceased Mr. Karamchand Sharma, Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma was not the legatee in respect of the said flat but the said flat was bequeathed in favour of the petitioner exclusively. 10. I do not propose to go into the issue of interpretation of the Will of the deceased Mr. Karamchand Sharma as the same can be gone into only in a separate suit. 11. In my view, since the petitioner did not fall in class I in so far as Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma is concerned and legal heirs under Class I are available, in the testamentary petition filed by Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, the petitioner was rightly not cited by Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma and he was not entitled to be served with any citation. Whether the said flat No. 16 belongs to Mr. Krishnagopal Sharma or the petitioner, in my view testamentary court cannot decide such title dispute. Testamentary court has neither decided title dispute in Testamentary Petition No. 403 of 2013 nor can decide such title dispute in this petition filed under section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 12. In my view, the 'just cause' urged by the learned counsel under section 263 (b) and (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for filing this petition are not made out. Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. It is made clear that this Court has not decided whether title in respect of the said flat vest in Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma or her predeceased husband or not and the said issue is kept open. Petition dismissed.