JUDGMENT :

B.M. SHYAM PRASAD, J.

1. This appeal is filed impugning the order dated 12.06.2018 in P&SC No. 293/2015 on the file of the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (for short, the ‘Probate Court’). The Probate Court by the impugned order dated 12.06.2018 has allowed the petition filed by the first respondent under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short the ‘Act’) as the Executor appointed by the testatrix, Mrs. Kamala B Singh, by her Will and Testament dated 04.07.2011. The Probate Court has granted probate of the aforesaid registered Will and Testament dated 04.07.2011 in favour of the first respondent to be effective across the country. The second and the fifth respondents are the beneficiaries under the aforesaid Will and Testament dated 04.07.2011.

2. The appellant is not a party in the proceedings in P&SC No. 293/2015 and as such, he has filed IA No. 1 of 2018 for leave to prosecute the appeal impugning the order dated 12.06.2018. This Court on 01.08.2018 has issued notice of the appeal and the aforesaid application (as well as the other application for stay of the impugned order) to the respondents while granting stay of the impugned order dated 12.6.2018 lest the respondents take advantage of the impugned order and create third party rights. The respondents, upon service of notice of the appeal and the applications as aforesaid, have filed their objection statement.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents have been heard on the maintainability of the appeal as well in view of the preliminary objections by the learned counsel for the respondents as against the maintainability of the appeal.

4. A précis of the facts and circumstances leading to the present appeal would be as follows. The testatrix, Mrs. Kamala B. Singh, died on 15.06.2013 leaving behind the registered Will and Testament dated 04.07.2011 appointing the first respondent as the Executor and bequeathing different immovable properties (including a residential apartment) and other assets like Bank Accounts and Deposits in favour of the second to fifth respondents. The second respondent is the testatrix’s niece being her deceased elder sister’s daughter. The third to fifth respondents are the children of the first and second respondents. Mr. Balaji Singh, the testatrix’s husband, survived her, and the revenue records for the immovable properties, are made in his name after the demise of the testatrix. However, there have been proceedings between Mr. Balaji Singh and the respondents.

5. The details of the proceedings between Mr. Balaji Singh and the respondents, and the appellant and the respondents are as follows:

OS No. 5338/2013:

This suit is commenced by Mr. Balaji Singh on 23.07.2013 against the first and the second respondents for permanent injunction insofar as three immovable properties that are described in this plaint as schedule A, B and C properties. The civil court has granted ad interim temporary injunction restraining these two respondents from interfering with Mr. Balaji Singh’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule B and C properties. The aforesaid respondents have filed a written statement on 24.3.2016 asserting rights under the last Will and Testament dated 04.07.2011.

On the demise of Mr. Balaji Singh, his siblings and some of the children of his deceased sibling have filed application under Order XXII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased. This application has been rejected on 27.11.2018.

OS No. 5830/2013:

The suit is filed by the second to fifth respondents on 12.08.2013 against Mr. Balaji Singh for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction to deliver the original title deeds to the immovable properties described in the plaint schedule A, B, C and D. Mr. Balaji Singh has filed his written statement on 26.06.2015 denying the plaint averments. [It is during the pendency of these tw