A person having any interest, however slight, and even a bare possibility of interest is sufficient to entitle a person to enter caveat.

1. This revision by the objector in a proceeding for grant of probate is directed against the order dated 28-6-1975, passed by the Additional District Judge, First Court, Muzaffarpur, holding that the objector has no locus standi to oppose the grant of probate or letters of administration.

2. It is not disputed that one Dhanraj Sah died leaving two widows, namely. Anurago Kuar and Inder Kuar. It is said that Anurago Kuar executed a will on 29-10-1908, in favour of the opposite party Deoki Devi with respect to her half share in her husbands estate. The aforesaid Devaki Devi claimed herself to be grand-daughter-in-law of Kapur Chand who was the brother of the testator. Anurago Kuer died on 13-1-1966. According to the opposite party the original will was in possession of the testator and in spite of search it was not available after her death and accordingly an informative petition was filed before the Sub-divisional Officer to that effect. On 12-4-1966, the aforesaid Devaki Devi filed an application for grant of probate which was registered as probate case No. 11 of 1966. Inder Kuer, the second wife of Dhanraj Sah (deceased) filed a case on 21-7-1966. In the said objection various grounds were raised against the grant of probate. It was alleged that the will was fraudulent forged, fabricated and concocted and that the will purported to have been executed on 29-10-1958, was not validly executed by Anurago Kuer. It was also stated that the names of all the relations were not disclosed and, accordingly, a genealogy was given showing all the relations of Dhanraj Sah. It is not necessary to mention other objections which were stated in the petition of objection. However, Inder Kuer died on 2-2-1971. After her death, on 9-11-1971 the petitioner entered caveat alleging that after the death of Dhanraj Sah both the co-widows succeeded to his properties half and half and after Anuragos death the property was held absolutely by Inder Kuer who was the full owner. It was further stated that on 6-5-1970, the aforesaid Inder Kuer executed a will in favour of the petitioner in respect of all the properties possessed by her. It has also been mentioned that previous to the execution of the will all the properties were gifted by the aforesaid Inder Kuer in favour of the petitioner, but, it was thought that the said deed of gift was void as permission of the consolidation officer was not taken and accordingly she executed the aforesaid will in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also challenged the genuineness of the will executed by Anurago Kuer in favour of Devaki Devi. It was further stated that the will was forged and did not contain the thumb-impressions and the signature of the deceased nor was it drafted, written, signed, witnessed and scribed at Anurago Kuers instance or in her presence. It was also stated that the will was not presented before the Sub-Registrar nor admitted by the said Anurago Kuer.

3. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the court below decided by the impugned order that the petitioner has no locus standi to oppose the grant of probate as he has no chance of succeeding to the Estate of Dhanraj Sah.

4. It appears that as against impugned order, originally a miscellaneous appeal was filed before this court. The Stamp Reporter by his further report pointed out that miscellaneous appeal did not lie but a revision was maintainable. The learned Judge who heard the matter held by his order dated 21-10-1976, that the miscellaneous appeal was not maintainable and accordingly with the permission of the court the memo of appeal was converted into the present civil revision application.

5. Mr. Bishwanath Prasad No. II, in support of this application contended that the court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in holding that the petitioner had no chance of succeeding to the estate of Dhanraj Sah and therefore, had no locus standi to file caveat. According to the lear