JUDGMENT : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. This appeal is against the revocation of grant of probate of Will under Section 264 of the Indian Succession Act. 2. Appellant impugns the judgment dated 30.01.2009 passed in Probate (Revocation) Case No. 02 of 2005 by learned 1st Additional District Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder, the WILL, which was duly probated in Probate Case No. 4 of 2001 on 09.02.2004, was revoked. 3. The testator of WILL was Md. Ahmad. Letter of Administration was granted in favour of Majhar Imam, the nephew of testator, as he was the sole executor of the WILL. 4. For better appreciation sequence of dates and events are set out below :- Date Event 04.11.1992 WILL executed by Md. Ahmad in favour of the Original appellant-Majhar Imam and Noorun Nisha. 10.01.1997 Will was registered in the office of Registrar at Chaibasa. 29.11.2000 Testator Md. Ahmad dies. 13.09.2001 Executor files application for probate of Will, which gets registered as Probate Case No.4 of 2001. The detail of the property was annexed with the schedule of WILL which is the house hold property measuring an area 2 Kathas 14 Dhurs situated in Khas Mahal Holding No. 761/1462/1561, Plot Nos. 1463 and 1464, District Chaibasa. In the said probate application, Noorun Nisha was impleaded as opposite party No.1 and Md. Irfan as opposite party No.2. Both the opposite parties appeared before the court below and they filed an affidavit for grant of probate in favour of applicant-Majhar Imam. 09.02.2004 Probate allowed and the applicant appointed as sole executor of the Will dated 04.11.1992. 5. The revocation case under Section 264 was filed by respondent no. 1-Md. Ali Imam on two counts: Firstly, the testator had changed his mind and executed his last and final WILL on 17.07.2000 in favour of his younger brother Md. Fahimul Haque, father of the applicant, with respect to the property included in his earlier WILL dated 04.11.1992 and, therefore, the earlier WILL had become inoperative and infructuous. Secondly, the applicant was not made a party in the probate case filed by the opposite parties in which the probate was granted with respect to the WILL dated 04.11.1992. 6. The learned court below, inter alia, framed the following main issues Issue No. 1: Is the case maintainable in its present form and for the reliefs claimed? Secondly, the applicant was not made a party in the probate case filed by the opposite parties in which the probate was granted with respect to the WILL dated 04.11.1992. 6. The learned court below, inter alia, framed the following main issues Issue No. 1: Is the case maintainable in its present form and for the reliefs claimed? Issue No. Question VI Is the probate granted in favour of the opposite parties in Probate Case No. 4 of 2001 by the 1st Additional District Judge of the WILL of Md. Ahmad dated 04.11.1992 liable to be revoked/annulled? VII Is the alleged WILL of Md. Ahmad dated 17.07.2000 in favour of Late Md. Fahimul Haque liable to be probated being genuine? 7. Learned court below recorded finding in favour of the applicant and revoked the grant of probate of WILL. 8. The grant was revoked mainly on the ground that earlier WILL probated in favour of the appellant was not the last WILL, as the testator had executed another unregistered WILL on 17.7.2000 in favour of Md. Fahimul Haque. Learned court below also disbelieved the testimony of O.P.W- 2 Md. Irfan regarding execution of Will. 9. It is argued by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that the WILL executed by Md. Ahmad was registered WILL and duly attested. In Probate Case No. 04 of 2001, the probate application was duly allowed after hearing the necessary party. 10. Under the Mohammadan Law, present opposite party no. 1 was not the legal heir and descendant of Md. Ahmad and was not an necessary party, therefore, there was no occasion to implead him as a party in the probate application. In the purported WILL executed by the testator on 17.07.2000, there is no reference to the earlier WILL executed that it was being made on supersession to that earlier WILL. The fact of the matter remains a registered WILL properly probated has been revoked on the strength of an un-registered WILL made in favour of a third party, whereas the appellants are the heirs and descendants of the testator. 11. Probate Case No. 01/2002 was filed by Fahimul Haque (father of respondent No.1) which got dismissed for default. A restoration application was filed which also got dismissed. 12. On failure to get the said WILL probated, the present revocation case was filed by the son of Fahimul Haque. 11. Probate Case No. 01/2002 was filed by Fahimul Haque (father of respondent No.1) which got dismissed for default. A restoration application was filed which also got dismissed. 12. On failure to get the said WILL probated, the present revocation case was filed by the son of Fahimul Haque. It is also argued that there was no occasion for the testator to have executed the Will in favour of the Fahimul Haque or his son, as he had even filed Complaint case no.51/1992 against him and his family members. Even in the impugned order the strained relationship between the testator Md Ahmad and the Fahimul Haque has been noted in page 22-23. 13. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that they are the heirs and descendants of brother of the testator and were necessary party in terms of Section 270 A of the Indian Succession Act for being impleaded during hearing of the probate case. They were also in possession of the property with respect to which the WILL was granted, despite under Mohammadan Law being the brother had a residuary right of inheritance. Under the circumstance, they were necessary party and, therefore, non-impleadment in the probate case, there is specific ground for revocation as discussed by the court below. 14. On the question that the WILL purported to be executed in their favour on 17.07.2000 which could not be probated, two folds of argument have been advanced: Firstly, it is said that in terms of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act the probate made to the WILL executed by the Mohammadan Law was not compulsorily requires to be probated. Secondly, even if it was not probated, it can be used for co- lateral purposes as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2005) 9 SCC 379 (paras 36 and 39). Further, reliance is placed on 2016 SCC Online (Madras) 27406 . 15. Having heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, it is to be noted that grounds for revocation of a probate have been provided under Section 263 of the Succession Act, which reads as under: 263. Revocation or annulment for just cause. — The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. Having heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, it is to be noted that grounds for revocation of a probate have been provided under Section 263 of the Succession Act, which reads as under: 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. From the above provision, it is apparent that grant of probate of Will can be revoked only for just cause. Explanation to Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act clarifies when a just cause shall deem to exist. Just cause shall among other thing be deemed to exist where the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance. Defective in substance must mean that defect was of such a character as to substantially affect the regularity and correctness of the previous proceedings. (See ) 16. In the present case the WILL duly probated has been revoked, on ground which will not come within any of the ground as provided under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. There is no allegation that earlier grant was obtained by fraudulent, or on an untrue allegation or it had become ineffective. 17. The only ground that moved the learned Court below to revoke the grant appears to be the said subsequent unregistered WILL dated 17.07.2000 in favour of the Respondent. There is no whisper in this WILL, of the earlier WILL 04.11.92 or its revocation. Revocation could not have been allowed in the absence of any evidence of revocation of earlier WILL. The only ground that moved the learned Court below to revoke the grant appears to be the said subsequent unregistered WILL dated 17.07.2000 in favour of the Respondent. There is no whisper in this WILL, of the earlier WILL 04.11.92 or its revocation. Revocation could not have been allowed in the absence of any evidence of revocation of earlier WILL. Law is settled that when, the earlier WILL is sought to be revoked on the ground of subsequent WILL, there should be some evidence that the testator revoked the earlier WILL and executed another WILL as last WILL. Prima facie proof of such revocation was necessary. (see Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and Others, 1955 SCC OnLine SC 61). Further, it is rightly argued on behalf of the appellants, that respondent No.1 was not a necessary party and therefore he was not impleaded in Probate Case No. 4 of 2001. Once a probate is granted, it is a judgment in rem, and it cannot be a ground of revocation under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act. 18. Furthermore, even the purported WILL of 17.07.2000 could not be probated as the Probate Case No.01/2002 was dismissed for default and restoration application was also dismissed and it attained finality. Under the circumstance, for the reasons discussed above, the impugned order is not sustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.