( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved by the rejection of his application for impleading (I. A. VIII) in Probate C. P. No. 8/ 1998 pending on the file of this Court, the appellant has filed this appeal.

( 2 ) THE Appellant (N. Ramaiah) is the brother of one Anjanamma. The said Anjanamma was the widow, and the respondent herein (S. Nagaraj) is the nephew (brother's son), of one Muni Narayanappa. The respondent herein (S. Nagaraj) filed Probate C. P. No. 8/1998 for grant of letters of administration in regard to a Will dated 11-1-1998 said to have been executed by the Muni Narayanappa. The said Will was contested by Anjanamma, widow of Muni Narayanappa, inter alia on the grounds that the said Will was a got up document, and that she had succeeded to the properties of Muni Narayanappa as his sole legal heir.

( 3 ) IN the said proceedings, the said S. Nagaraj filed I. A. I. on 16-3-1998 seeking a temporary injunction to restrain Anjanamma from alienating/encumbering the properties, or withdrawing the amounts from the Banks, mentioned in the schedule therein on the ground that the said properties were bequeathed to him under the Will dated 11-1-1998 by Muni Narayanappa. Item A of the schedule to the said application (IA1) is land and building in Khata No. 280/6-4b, Hennur, Bangalore with the running business of Cauvery Service Station. Item B in the Schedule was the house, in the occupation of Anjanamma arid the Building in the Occupation of Sitaram Agencies. Item C related to Bank Balances/deposits. The learned single Judge made an order on the said application on 18-6-1998 directing the Respondent therein (Anjanamma) to maintain status quo in regard to the properties until further orders.

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the said Anjanamma died on 11-12-1998 and the appellant herein filed an application (IA VIII) for impleading himself as the respondent in Prob C. P. 8/ 1998 in place of the deceased Anjanamma, by claiming to be the legatee under the registered Will dated 15-9-1998 of the said Anjanamma. He claimed that Anjanamma had bequeathed her properties described in the schedule to her Will dated 15-9-1998 to him and his children and therefore he is one of the co-owners of the properties which were the subject matter of Prob. C. P. 8/ 1998. Schedule 'a' to the Said Will dated 15-9-1998 relates to property bearing Sy. No. 6/4b measuring 1 acre in Hennur Road, Bangalore with a residential house and a Petrol Bunk by name Cauvery Service Station with all machineries, etc. Schedule B and C relate to amounts in Bank Accounts and deposits.

( 5 ) IT is stated that the property described in Schedule 'a' in the alleged will of Anjanamma is the same as the properties described as Item A and B in the schedule to I. A. I. in Probate C. P. No. 8/1998. which was the subject matter of the order of status quo.

( 6 ) THE said application for impleading was resisted by S. Nagaraj. The learned single Judge, accepting the objections, has dismissed the application for impleading, holding that the Will dated 15-9-1998 was executed by Anjanamma, in breach and defiance of the order of status quo and therefore non-est and of no legal consequence and will have to be ignored; and that the appellant who based his right on such Will of Anjanamma, had no locus standi to apply for impleading and was not entitled to come on record and contest the proceedings for letters of administration filed by the respondent, in regard to the Will of Muni Narayanappa. The relevant portion of the order of the learned single Judge is extracted below for ready reference:-"4. Dealing with the objection regarding the execution of the alleged Will on 15-9-98 during the pendency of the prohibitory order passed by this Court, applicant's learned counsel contended that the status quo order only restricted alienations and it is his contention therefore that the order in question does not come in the way of the parties executing documents which is different from alienation. To my mind, this is