1. The District Judge's order cannot be supported. The District Judge seems to have thought that if the inventory submitted by the executors was untrue in a material respect he had no option but to revoke the Probate. Section 50 (5) of the Probate and Administration Act says that the grant 'may' be revoked on account of a material falsehood in the inventory submitted by the executor. The value of large assets (about a lac of rupees) left by a trader-testator ' is almost a matter of conjecture and perfect accuracy can hardly be expected.
2. We do not think that it was a proper exercise by the Court of its discretion under sectien 50 (5) of the Probate and Administration Act to revoke in 1914 a Probate granted in 1907, merely on the ground that the inventory submitted in 1907 estimated the testator's assets as worth about 70,000 instead of about 95,000 rupees.
3. We, therefore, set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that the petition for revocation of Probate be dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs in both Courts.