` 1 MP-93 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Misc. Petition No.93 of 2009 IN Testamentary Petition No.87 of 2004 Mohamed Haroon & ors. .. .. Petitioners v/s. Faiyaz Ahmed Ajmatulla Shaikh & ors. .. Respondents Mr.H. Toor i/by M/s.S.K. Legal Associates for Petitioners. Mr.Pradeep Kadam for Respondents. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 23rd November, 2010 P.C. : 1. Four Petitioners have filed this Petition for revocation of the Letters of administration granted to Respondent No.1 in respect of the Will left by the deceased Mohammed Hafiz Mohammed Husain, who expired on 26th October 1994. The Petitioners have shown an Affidavit filed by Mohammed Hafiz in a litigation filed by the Union of India which he was defending being Notice of Motion No.1897 of 1984 in Suit No.2087 of 1984. In that Affidavit, the ` 2 MP-93 deceased had mentioned his heirs. Petitioner No.1 is one of the heirs. Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are not shown as the heirs. In the Petition for probate filed by Respondent No.1 herein, the deceased was shown not to have left behind any heirs. That statement is false. Seeing the Affidavit filed by the deceased himself the false statement gives the heirs a right to sue for revocation of the grant made based upon the said statement. Had the statement not been made, the heirs would have had to be shown in the Petition and the citation would have to be served upon them. Since Petitioner No.1 was an heir, but has not been shown, he is entitled to file a Petition for revocation of the Letters of administration granted. 2. Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are not shown as the heirs of the deceased by the deceased. Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are also shown as the heirs of the deceased by the Petitioners themselves. Their statement is left completely unsubstantiated. That statement has been denied. It is for them to prove their lineage which is not shown. 3. Mr.Toor, on instructions from the Advocate on record of the Petitioners, applies for deleting the names of Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4. Their names are ` 3 MP-93 accordingly deleted. It may be mentioned that even otherwise the Petition filed by them would be liable to be dismissed. 4. Since Petitioner No.1 is shown as the heir of the deceased himself during his lifetime, in an Affidavit filed in a proceeding in this Court, he must be taken to be the heir and hence the Petition and the citation must be served upon him. 5. It is also argued that there is another false averment made in the Petition by Respondent No.1 that there was no Petition for probate or Letters of administration in respect of the Will of the deceased or without the Will annexed in respect of his assets and credits. Mr.Toor argued that other heirs and legal representatives had filed another Petition for probating another Will of the deceased which has been probated. The averment made in the Petition by Respondent No.1 relates only to any Petition filed in respect of the Will which is sought to be probated and it does not relate to other Petitions in respect of other Wills of the deceased. Hence no falsity in that statement is seen. 6. Only because Petitioner No.1 is seen to be the heir ` 4 MP-93 of the deceased upon the admission of the deceased, he would be entitled to have the Letters of administration revoked. 7. Hence the Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) only in so far as Petitioner No.1 is concerned. 8. It is clarified that Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are not shown to be the heirs and are not granted any order. Since the Letters of administration stand revoked, the original Petition for grant of Letters of administration being Petition No.87 of 2004 shall have to proceed in accordance with law upon issue of the citation to Petitioner No.1 only. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)