1. According to Anil Kumar Singh, son of late Janardan Sinha, his grand-father Ram Binod Singh died testate on 23.05.1967. In 1983 almost 16 years after the death of the testator, Anil Kumar Singh filed an application for grant of letters of administration annexed with the Will. At the time when the application was filed one of the sons of Ram Binod Singh, namely, Dr. Surendra Sinha was alive. He was accordingly cited but, admittedly, he did not enter a caveat. One of the daughters of Ram Binod Singh, namely, Sharda Mandal, on being cited, filed a caveat and thereupon filed an affidavit-in-support of the caveat and, as a result, in 1987 the application for grant was treated as a suit in between Anil Kumar Singh, plaintiff and Sharda Mandal, defendant.

2. In the meantime on 30.10.1986. Dr. Surendra Sinha died in testate and, as a result, his wife Brij Shanti Mani, being the appellant above named, in her own capacity, acquired some interest in the estate of Ram Binod Singh, testator. In 1995 appellant filed a caveat. Prior thereto the defendant in the suit prayed for a direction for issuance of a citation upon the appellant. That having been rejected, the matter came up before this Court, when this Court observed that the thing, as was being sought for by the defendant in the suit, is unheard of. According to the appellant, subsequent thereto over telephone, the defendant in the suit informed the appellant about the pendency of the suit and accordingly the appellant in 1995 filed the caveat.

3. The caveat so filed has been discharged by the order under appeal principally on the ground that the appellant had no interest in the estate of the testator and that there is unexplained delay in approaching the Court to file caveat.

4. In terms of the provisions contained in the Indian Succession Act, 1925 , before a grant is accorded, special citations are required to be issued upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceeding before the grant is accorded. At the best, a person who has acquired any interest in the estate of the deceased at or immediately before issuance of citations may be cited. A person, who has acquired some interest subsequent thereto, cannot be cited. As on the date of issuance of citation in the instant case, the appellant having had no interest in the estate of the deceased could not be cited and, in fact, she had not been cited. The question is whether because she was not cited and her predecessor-in-inter-est having been cited but refused to file a caveat, despite having interest in the estate of the testator and whether the right to fite a caveat to contest a grant is a substantive right?

5. It goes without saying that right to con-test a grant is a substantive right inasmuch a the grant will deprive the contestant of the part of the estate inherited by him or her. Since such contest can be made by lodging a caveat and thereupon by filing an affidavit in support thereof, the right to file a caveat is a substantive right of any person who has any interest in the estate of the testator.

6. Although citations are to be issued to all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the testator and though only a person having some interest in the estate of the testator can file a caveat, but the law governing the field does not for a second suggests that only those who have been cited are entitled to lodge caveat. The logical conclusion, therefore, would be that the person claiming to have interest in the estate of the deceased must have such interest as on the date of lodgment of the caveat.

7. In 1995, no grant was accorded. The suit was still pending. In 1995, admittedly, the appellant had some interest in the estate of the testator. As on the date of lodgment of the caveat, she had, therefore, the basic right to lodge a caveat. No doubt, there is unexplained delay in lodgment of the caveat. As aforesaid, in 1986 itself she acquired interes