Maclean, C.J.
1. This appeal arises out of an application for revocation of Letters of Administration with the will annexed, the application being made on the 10th of October 1898, and the Letters of Administration having been granted on the 21st of June 1892, The will set up is dated the 2nd October 1882: it will thus be seen that no application for Letters of Administration was made, although we are informed that executors had been appointed by the will, till nearly ten years after the date of the alleged will.
2. The alleged testator left two sons as his heirs, and from the date of the father's death up to the time of the Letters of Administration being granted, they had, throughout, dealt with the property as his heirs, and at no time was there any suggestion made that the father had left a will. They had mortgaged and sold the property and dealt with it entirely as their own; and the present applicant for revocation of the Letters of Administration is the purchaser of a large portion, if not the bulk, of the father's property, under decrees in mortgage suits in respect of mortgages made by the two sons. The mortgages and the decrees in the mortgage suits were anterior in point of date to 21st of June 1892, though the actual date of the purchase was subsequent to that time. Under these circumstances, the only question submitted for our decision is, whether the applicant had any locus standi to apply for revocation of these Letters of Administration. I think he had. He stood virtually in the shoes of the two sons, who claimed to be the heirs, and who had dealt with the property, as the sole owners of it. The applicant was the purchaser from the heirs, and, if the heirs could have applied for revocation of the Letters of Administration, I do not see why the purchaser could not do so, he being in the same position as they were. He was not in the position of an ordinary creditor, but was the purchaser from the heirs. I think, therefore, that, if the heirs were entitled to sue for revocation of the Letters of Administration, the purchaser from them had a locus standi to make a similar application. This view seems to me to be consistent with certain decisions of this Court, namely, the case of Komol Lochun Dutt v. Nil Ruttun Mundle (1878)I.L.R.4 Cal. 360 and also the very recent case of Muddun Mohun Sircar v. Kali Chum Dey (1892) I.L.R. 20 Cal. 37 On these grounds I think the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.
Banerjee, J.
3. I am of the same opinion.