Appeal Dismissing Probate Revocation Application Upheld

The appeal challenging the dismissal of an application for revocation of Probate of a Will was unsuccessful. The court found that the grant had not become inoperative and that the executors had fulfilled their duties regarding the inventory and accounts. The application for revocation was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents. Judge P.L. Buckland concurred with the decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for revocation of Probate of a Will dismissed by District Judge
2. Allegations of grant becoming useless and inoperative
3. Allegations of executors omitting to exhibit accurate inventory and accounts

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the dismissal of an application for revocation of Probate of a Will by the District Judge. The testator made a disposition of properties before passing away. The respondents applied for Probate, which was granted after a legal process. The appellants initiated proceedings for revocation, alleging the grant had become useless and executors failed to exhibit accurate inventory and accounts. The District Judge dismissed the application, prompting the appeal.
2. The first contention was whether the grant had become inoperative through circumstances. The appellants argued that the estate had vested in the legatee, negating the need for executors. Legal precedents were cited, but it was established that duties of executors remained unfulfilled, thus the grant was not inoperative. The second point revolved around confusion regarding the submission of inventory and accounts. The Statute required a single inventory and account, not periodic submissions. The appellants failed to specify inaccuracies in the accounts, rendering their objection unsubstantiated.
3. Lastly, the executors were accused of omitting to exhibit an accurate inventory or providing an untrue one. While there was a delay in exhibiting the inventory, it was eventually accepted by the Court. The appellants' vague objections lacked specificity, and upon review, the inventory was found to be accurate. Consequently, the application for revocation based on these grounds failed. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and a cross-objection on costs was also addressed by setting aside the original cost order and determining new costs for both parties. Judge P.L. Buckland concurred with the decision.

---