JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by one Lakshmichand against an order of the District Judge, Pali, refusing to revoke letters of administration which had been granted on 31. 8. 59 to Pannalal respondent under sec. 218 Succession Act of the estate of one Achla deceased who died on 5. 1. 55.
(2.) LAKSHMICHAND had been impleaded as a party by Pannalal in proceedings arising on his application under see, 218 Succession Act. Citation was issued to him and he opposed the application inter alia on the ground that Achla deceased had executed a will in his favour. The learned District Judge however rejected his objection holding that as probate of the will had not been obtained by him he was debarred from raising any objection on the basis of the will in view of sec. 213 Succession Act. Letters of administration of the estate of the deceased were granted to Pannalal on 31. 8. 59. Lakashmichand did not file any appeal against the above order which accordingly became final. On 29. 9. 59 he filed one application under sec. 263 for the revocation of the letters of administration and another application for the grant of probate of the will alleged to have been executed by Achla deceased in his favour. The learned District Judge rejected the application for revocation of letters of administration on the ground that no just cause within the meaning of sec, 263 Succession Act had been made out. Against that order the present appeal has been filed. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the just cause is that the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance inasmuch as the learned District judge gave a wrong decision on a question of law. Reliance is placed on Sheonath Singh Vs. Madanlal (1) to show that the interpretation put by the learned District Judge on sec. 313 Succession Act in the previous proceedings was erroneous. It is true that for reasons given in the decision in Sheonath Singh's case, the bar under sec. 213 is not applicable to Hindu wills made in Rajasthan and the decision of the learned District Judge in the previous case on the point is erroneous. But an erroneous decision in the previous proceedings which has become final and to which the appellant was a party cannot be considered to be a "just cause" within the meaning of sec. 263 Succession Act. No Court can, in my opinion, allow a "just cause" already agitated and decided upon before the grant of letters of administration to be again made the subject of an application to revoke that grant. I accordingly hold that there is no force in this appeal and dismiss it with costs. The interim order passed in this case staying proceedings in civil misc. case No. 5 of 1960, Shah Lakshmichand Vs. Pannalal relating to the grant of probate pending in the court of the District Judge Pali is discharged. Let the record be returned to the lower court. .;