R. SHEELA Vs. RADHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inveighing the order of revocation of probate granted in favour of the appellant by the I Additional District Court, Salem, dated 04.12.2013, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Based on the WILL dated 01.06.1984 executed by the paternal grandfather of the appellant, she filed an Original Petition in O.P.No.143 of 2009 for grant of Probate and it was granted on 21.02.2011. Thereafter, she had settled the property in favour of her mother on 23.05.2011. Thereafter, the respondent, who has no caveatable interest, filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.511 of 2013 for revocation of probate. The application was allowed on 04.12.2013 revoking the probate, against which, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the respondent is the daughter-in-law of the Testator and she has no caveatable interest in the property and has no locus standi to maintain the petition for revocation. Since she had been married to an outsider, she has no right of succession as per Hindu Succession Act and she is not entitled to any citation. Further, the revocation of probate was sought on the ground that the testator bequeathed the property in favour of his son retaining life interest to the wife. During the lifetime of the mother, son has no right. The son died during the lifetime of the mother. In that event, the daughter-in -law, even as per her own statement, has no right to file an application. On the other hand, the so called WILL executed in favour of her husband itself was disproved in O.S.No.1002 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Salem. Therefore, the application filed by the respondent was not maintainable and the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. Hence, the respondent neither a beneficiary nor a person having any interest in the estate of the Testator, has no right to maintain the application and the Lower Court ought not to have ordered revocation.