G. Gopal vs C. Baskar & Ors

C.Baskar & Ors. ...Respondents

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 31st of July, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of

the High Court of Madras in OSA NO.219 of 2006 by

which the order of the grant of revocation of probate

passed by the learned Single Judge of the original side of

the High Court in Application No.4122 of 2005 in T.O.S.

NO.32 of 1999 was confirmed.

4. We have heard Mr.Thiayagarajan, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. R.Rajani,

1 learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

We have also examined the judgment under appeal as

well as the materials on record. The only question that

was agitated before us by Mr.Thiayagarajan, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant challenging the

judgment of the High Court revoking the probate granted

in respect of the Will executed by the testator, was that

the respondents having no caveatable interest in the

estate of the deceased, the application for revocation filed

by them could not be allowed. We are unable to accept

these submissions made by Mr.Thiayagarajan, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant only for the

simple reason that admittedly the respondents were

grand children of the testator and they have claimed the

estate of the deceased on the basis of a settlement deed

executed by the testator himself which admittedly was

revoked by the testator. That being the position, we must

hold that the respondents had caveatable interest in the

estate of the testator and, therefore, they are entitled to

be served before the final order is passed. It is well

2 settled that if a person who has even a slight interest in

the estate of the testator is entitled to file caveat and

contest the grant of probate of the will of the testator.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any ground to

interfere with the impugned order of the High Court.

Mr.Thiayagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant submits, on instruction, that the present

respondents shall be made parties in the proceeding for

grant of probate within a fortnight from this date. If such

an application of impleadment is filed, it is needless to

say that the same shall stand allowed and, in that case,

the probate proceedings as well as the suit being Suit

No.772 of 2005 filed in the original side of the Madras

High Court shall be clubbed together and dispose of at

an early date preferably within four months from the

date of communication of this order.

6. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

...........................J.

3 [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; .............................J. September 03, 2008. [Aftab Alam]

4