Probate revocation requires specific statutory grounds and precise proof; vague objections to accounts or inventory will not suffice.
Revocation of probate under the Probate and Administration Act requires a clearly established statutory ground supported by specific pleadings and proof. The Court stated that probate does not become useless or inoperative merely because executors have not completed all duties, where the estate has not otherwise passed beyond their control; that ground failed. It further held that objections to accounts must identify a particular omission or falsity, since the statute contemplates an inventory and account rather than periodic annual accounts; vague challenges were insufficient. Finally, delay in filing an inventory did not justify revocation once filed and accepted, and no materially false item was proved; that ground also failed.
Issues: (i) Whether the grant of probate had become useless and inoperative through circumstances so as to justify revocation under Section 50 of the Probate and Administration Act; (ii) whether the probate could be revoked on the ground that the executors wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit, or exhibited untrue, accounts within the meaning of Section 98(1) and the relevant explanation to Section 50; (iii) whether the probate could be revoked on the ground that the inventory was untrue in material respects.
Issue (i): Whether the grant of probate had become useless and inoperative through circumstances so as to justify revocation under Section 50 of the Probate and Administration Act.
Analysis: The executors had not completed all duties under the will, and the estate had not been shown to have passed out of their possession in a manner that made the grant unnecessary. The circumstances did not establish that the grant had ceased to have operative effect.
Conclusion: The ground for revocation was not made out and the issue was decided against the appellants.
Issue (ii): Whether the probate could be revoked on the ground that the executors wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit, or exhibited untrue, accounts within the meaning of Section 98(1) and the relevant explanation to Section 50.
Analysis: The statutory requirement contemplated the filing of an inventory and an account, not periodic annual accounts. Although accounts had been filed, the objections to their correctness were not stated with the necessary specificity, and no particular item or falsity was clearly identified so as to justify revocation.
Conclusion: The alleged defects in the accounts did not furnish a basis for revocation and the issue was decided against the appellants.
Issue (iii): Whether the probate could be revoked on the ground that the inventory was untrue in material respects.
Analysis: Mere delay in filing the inventory did not support revocation once it had been submitted and accepted. The challenge to its truthfulness was not pleaded with sufficient precision, and no specific item or error was established as materially false.
Conclusion: The inventory challenge failed and the issue was decided against the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The application for revocation of probate was held unsustainable on all asserted grounds, and the dismissal of the appeal was affirmed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Revocation of probate under Section 50 requires a clearly established statutory ground supported by specific pleadings and proof; vague or general allegations that accounts or inventory are untrue in material respects are insufficient.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
