A caveat must be filed within the time limit prescribed under Rule 18 of Chapter XI, Part 2 of the Patna High Court Rules and the affidavit in support of the caveat must be filed within 8 days from the date of filing of the caveat, as required under Rule 18. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the dismissal of the caveat.

S. K. Chattopadhaya, J.

1. Heard the parties on the petitioners at Flags 5 and 6. The petition (Flag-5) under consideration is one under Sec.284 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed on behalf of Mst. Gayatri Devi, wife of late Rajo Singh. This caveat has been filed though on behalf of said Gayatri Devi but it has been verified by one Dwarka Singh, son of late Ganga Prasad Singh who has described himself as the sisters son of the caveator, namely, Gayatri Devi. In verification portion, it has been stated that Dwarika Singh has been authorised to make pairvi of the present case, In affidavit portion of the petition, Dwarka singh has stated that Gayatri Devi is an old woman and suffering from various ailments and as such she has authorised him to swear affidavit on her behalf.

2. The objector has objected to the grant of probate solely on the ground that the applicant executor has produced a forged and fabricated document in the form of will and late Rajo Singh had not executed the said will on 19-5-1972. Other various objections have been raised by the objector for grant of probate of the said will.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant to the aforesaid caveat filed on behalf of Gayatri Devi. In the said counter-affidavit, it has been stated, inter alia, that Gayatri Devi is aunt of the petitioner, namely, Ramawatar Singh and she is not altogether an illiterate lady rather can put her signature very well in Hindi. The Vakalatnama surprisingly does not bear the signature of Gayatri Devi and as such the said Vakalatnama cannot be said to have been executed by Smt Gayatri devi. It is stated that as a matter of fact Gayatri Devi had no reason whatsoever to contest the present proceeding and the will in question, inasmuch as, her interest has been retained by the aforesaid will. As a matter of fact, gayatri Devi has been given life interest in all the properties to enjoy the same according to her wish during her lifetime. She is in possession of the said property and enjoying the usufructs therefrom and so there is no reason for Gayatri Devi to contest the said will. It is stated that Late Rajo Singh and Gayatri Devi have no issue and as her interest has been protected by the said will, there does not seem any intention for her to contest the present proceeding. In a nutshell, it is stated by the petitioner executor that keeping gayatri Devi in background, some one is pulling string from behind in order to grab the entire property of Late Rajo Singh and thereby trying to oust said Gayatri Devi even from her life interest.

4. From the record, it appears that a petition was filed earlier on 9-4-91 on behalf of Gayatri Devi which was affidavited by one Manorama devi, wife of Late Ram Khelawan Singh, stated to be Bhabi of Gayatri Devi. In this petition prayer was made for transferring this testamentary case to the Court of District Judge, Gaya, on the ground that as Gayatri Devi is old and not in a position to move and as such cannot even appear in person before this Court for giving evidence. By order dated 13-12-1991, after hearing the parties, the said partition was dismissed by this Court.

5. Again a petition was filed on behalf of Gayatri Devi on 9-4 91 affidavited by said Manorma Devi. In the said petition prayer was made to dismiss the present testamentary case on the ground stated therein. The prayer was again rejected by this Court by order dated 27-3-1992 with observation, that if objector intends to object to the grant of letters of administration, she could file a caveat as provided under the law.

6. After rejection the second petition on 27-3-92, it appears from the record that no caveat was filed and on 10-7-92, P. W.1 was examined and was discharged. On 31-7-92, P. W.2 was examined and was discharged and the case was directed to be put up for further hearing on 7-8-92. The case was adjourned on several dates. On 25-5-93, ultimately a caveat was