Charles Sargent, C.J.
1. The question in this case arises upon a refusal of the District Judge to grant probate of the will of one Shapurji Nasarwanji to Hormusji Navroji, on the ground that the bequests contained in it are illegal and void. The probate is only conclusive as to the appointment of executors and the validity and the contents of the will-Williams on Executors, p. 452 (4th ed.); and on the application for probate it is not the province of the Court to go into the question of title, with reference to the property of which the will purports to dispose, or the validity of such disposition-Behary Lall Sandyal v. Juggo Mohun Gossain, I.L.R., 4 Cal 1
2. But it has been contended that as Hormusji was cited on Dosabhai's second application for letters of administration in 1882, the grant of administration to him cannot now be revoked. It appears, however, that when those proceedings were commenced, and when Hormusji was cited, Hirabai, who was the executrix named in the will (Hormusji being only named in the will as executor on her death), was still alive, and the citation did not, therefore, call on him to accept or renounce executorship.
3. On Hirabai's death, however, which took place before the actual grant of administration to Dosabhai, such a citation was imperatively required by Section 16 of Act V of 1S81 before the grant could be legally made, and, therefore, in default of such citation, the proceedings were defective in substance-a circumstance which constitutes good cause for the revocation of the letters of administration, as provided by Section 50 of the above Act. We must, therefore, discharge the order, and direct that the letters of administration granted to Dosabhai be revoked, and probate be granted to Hormusji, in accordance with his application.
4. The applicant to have his costs here and in the Court below.