(Prayer: To Revoke the Probate order dated 20/12/2022 in O.P.No.457 of 2022 on the file of this Honble Court.)

1. This application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side rules read with Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking revocation of the Letters of Administration granted by this Court on 20.12.2022 in O.P.No.457 of 2022 in favour of the respondent, M. Sasikumar, in respect of the registered Will dated 16.08.2019 said to have been executed by V. Ramachandran, under which the respondent is the sole beneficiary.

2. The applicant, Tmt. Lakshmi, claims that she is the sister of the testator. According to her, she was born to Sundari Naicker, the sister of Santhimathi the testator mother, and was adopted when she was about three months old by Veerabathira Naicker and Santhimathi, the parents of the testator, after the death of their daughter Nambu Bai. She states that she was thereafter brought up along with the testator at Door No.377/155, Konnur High Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai. She married Vasudevan on 18.02.1972. She further states that the testator married R. Parameshwari and that they had no children.

3. The applicant states that the subject property originally stood settled in favour of testator mother under Settlement Deed No.203 of 1958 dated 10.02.1958 and was thereafter settled in favour of the testator under Settlement Deed No.2890 of 1975 dated 16.10.1975. She relies upon these documents, apart from family photographs, letters, marriage invitations, records relating to family functions, community certificates of the applicants daughter, death certificates and passports, to support her asserted relationship with the testator and the family.

4. Her case is that the respondent is the natural son of one Sankaran, who had been running a tea shop in a portion of the property, and that the respondent was never validly adopted by the testator and his wife. She alleges that when the testator was elderly and in poor health, the respondent brought about a registered adoption deed dated 08.08.2019 and, eight days later, the registered Will dated 16.08.2019 in his own favour. She points out that Senthilkumar and Subash are witnesses to both documents and contends that the circumstances surrounding the adoption deed and the Will require a full contest and crossexamination. She also relies on the fact that the testator's wife was alive on the date of the Will and died on 03.05.2021, four days before the testator died on 07.05.2021.

5. The applicant further states that she had instituted O.S.No.7612 of 2021 before the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking a declaration that the Adoption Deed dated 08.08.2019, said to have been executed by V. Ramachandran and R. Parameshwari in favour of the respondent, is invalid, null and void; a further declaration that she is the sole surviving legal heir of late V. Ramachandran; and also a declaration that the Will dated 16.08.2019 said to have been executed by V. Ramachandran in favour of the respondent is invalid, null and void. According to her, notwithstanding the pendency of that suit, O.P.No.457 of 2022 was filed without making her a party or issuing individual citation to her. She states that she had no notice of the testamentary proceeding and that the respondent had represented in the Original Petition that the deceased left behind no next of kin or other person interested to be impleaded and that the respondent was the only legal heir. On this basis, she contends that the grant was obtained in proceedings defective in substance and therefore seeks revocation under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.

6. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit and has opposed the application. His principal objection is that the applicant is neither a legal heir nor a person having any caveatable interest in the estate. He describes her as a stranger to the testator's family, denies the alleged adoption of the applicant by Veerabathira Naicker and Santhimathi, and contends that unless that status is first established, she cannot seek revocation. He also relies on delay, contending that the applicant had knowledge of the adoption deed and the Will in 2021 but did not approach this Court for revocation until 2025.

7. The respondent asserts that he was validly adopted by V. Ramachandran and R. Parameshwari and that the adoption was recorded under registered Adoption Deed dated 08.08.2019, Document No.204 of 2019, Book IV, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Anna Nagar. He states that he had lived with and was brought up by them from childhood, that his name appears in the family card, and that he looked after them in their old age. He denies the allegation that he entered the family only when the testator became ill. He also disputes the applicant's description of the testator's medical condition and asserts that, except for a longstanding physical disability and a fracture suffered in 2016, the testator was mentally alert and capable of making his own decisions.

8. As regards the property, the respondent contends that the Settlement Deed dated 16.10.1975 settled the property absolutely upon V. Ramachandran and that, thereafter, the testator was fully competent to dispose of it by Will. He relies upon the registered Will dated 16.08.2019, Document No.42 of 2019, Book III, Sub-Registrar Office, Anna Nagar, and states that the testator executed it voluntarily while in a sound and disposing state of mind. He further points out that in O.P.No.457 of 2022, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and both attesting witnesses, Senthilkumar and Subash, were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3, and that the original Will and the registered adoption deed were produced before the Court before the grant was made.

9. The respondent specifically denies that he suppressed any material fact. He disputes the applicant's claim that she is the adopted daughter of the testator's parents and challenges the documents relied upon by her as insufficient to establish such adoption. He also refers to a sale deed of the year 1981 said to have been obtained by the applicant from Veerabathira Naicker and Santhimathi and contends that her present claim has been projected only after the death of the testator. He further states that O.S.No.7612 of 2021 did not contain a prayer for declaration of the applicant's alleged status as adopted daughter and that the suit was subsequently dismissed for default.

10. Pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 27.07.2026 and 31.07.2026, the respondent filed a status report dated 24.08.2026. It records that O.S.No.7612 of 2021 was dismissed for default on 07.08.2025; that the applicant filed a petition on 03.02.2026 for condonation of delay in seeking restoration, numbered as I.A.No.9 of 2026; that the respondent, who had been set ex parte in that application on 15.04.2026, filed I.A.No.10 of 2026 on 05.08.2026 to set aside the ex parte order; and that, as on the date of the status report, both applications were pending.

11. The only Point that arise for consideration is, Whether the applicant has shown just cause for revocation of the Letters of Administration with will annexed, granted in O.P. No. 457 of 2022, by order dated 20.12.2022.

12. The applicant describes herself as the adopted daughter of the deceased testator, V. Ramachandran’s parents, and, on that basis, claims to be his sister. The respondent is said to be the legatee under the Will dated 16.08.2019, allegedly executed by V. Ramachandran, who died on 07.05.2021. According to the applicant, the Will was fraudulently created, and the respondent obtained Letters of Administration with Will annexed without giving her notice or impleading her in the testamentary proceedings. She therefore seeks revocation of the probate.

13. On the respondent’s side, it is contended that the applicant’s claim to be the adopted daughter of the deceased testator’s parents is specifically denied. It is further contended that she has no caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased, V. Ramachandran, and therefore lacks locus standi to maintain the present application.

14. The applicant’s right to question the grant of Letters of Administration depends on her prima facie establishing that the testator’s parents adopted her. According to the applicant, Veerabathira Naicker and Santhimathi adopted her in 1953 at Rameswaram, thereafter brought her to Chennai, and educated her there. However, she has not produced any document showing Veerabathira Naicker and Santhimathi as her parents. Although she states that she studied at the Railway School, Chennai, she has produced no school record or certificate showing Veerabathira Naicker as her father. In fact, there is not even a prima facie document establishing her alleged adoption by Veerabathira Naicker and Santhimathi.

15. The applicant relies on her marriage invitation, allegedly printed by the deceased V. Ramachandran, which describes him as her brother and Veerabathira Naicker as her father. By itself, this document does not establish the factum of adoption. On the contrary, during their lifetime, Veerabathira Naicker and Santhimathi settled a portion of their property in favour of their son, the deceased V. Ramachandran. Subsequently, by a sale deed dated 08.04.1983, they sold the remaining portion of the property to the applicant for valuable consideration. The execution of a sale deed in favour of the applicant, rather than a settlement or gift recognising her as their daughter, supports the respondent’s contention that she was merely known to the family and was neither treated nor recognised as their adopted daughter during their lifetime.

16. At best, the materials indicate that the applicant was known to the family and that she might have been the daughter of Santhimathi’s sister. They do not, however, establish that she was adopted or consistently treated as the daughter of Veerabathira Naicker and Santhimathi. Therefore, having failed even prima facie to establish the alleged adoption, the applicant has not shown that she has a caveatable interest in the deceased testator’s estate. Consequently, she has no locus standi to maintain the application for revocation of probate.

17. On the respondent’s side, it is contended that the testator adopted him as his son and executed a registered deed of declaration of adoption dated 08.08.2019. The respondent filed the original petition seeking Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, on the strength of the Will dated 16.08.2019 executed by the deceased, V. Ramachandran, under which the property mentioned in the petition was bequeathed to him.

18. The testamentary Court did not adjudicate on the validity of the deed of declaration of adoption produced by the respondent, as the probate proceedings were not the appropriate forum to determine the validity of the alleged adoption. The Court confined its enquiry to the due execution and attestation of the registered Will. After examining the attesting witness and being satisfied that the Will was duly executed, the Court granted Letters of Administration with the Will annexed in favour of the respondent.

19. The applicant also filed a suit, O.S. No. 7612 of 2022, against the respondent in the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for a declaration that she is the sole surviving legal heir of the deceased testator, V. Ramachandran; it was dismissed for default on 07.08.2025, and it is stated that the applicant filed an application to restore the suit.

20. In the present case, the applicant has failed, prima facie, to establish her alleged adoption or any other legal or derivative interest in the deceased testator's estate. She has also failed to show that the grant was obtained by suppressing the existence of any person legally entitled to citation. Accordingly, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions do not advance her case, and her complaint that probate was granted without notice to her does not, by itself, constitute a just cause for revocation under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

21. For the reasons stated above, the application is dismissed. No costs.