SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

1. The appeal arises out of proceedings for grant of a probate. By the order impugned dated June 28, 2017, the caveat lodged by the appellant has been discharged on the twin grounds that the appellant had no caveat able interest and that the affidavit in support of the caveat did not disclose any legal ground of objection to the grant of probate.

2. The facts are not much in dispute and have been succinctly narrated in the order impugned. The appellant asserts his right to lodge and maintain a caveat as being the stand-by executor of a previous Will of the testator. In addition, the appellant refers to his status as a co-trustee in respect of the Trust set up by the previous Will. The first legal proposition canvassed by the appellant is that once a rival Will is cited, a person nominated as an executor (even by default) in such Will would always have a right to object to the grant of probate of another Will. The same legal right is asserted qua the status of the appellant as a trustee of the Trust set up by the previous Will in relation to the probate sought of an alleged later Will.

3. Testator Shrutika Doshi died at age 35 on May 26, 2013. The respondent is the propounder in the present proceedings in respect of a Will said to have been executed by the testator on April 22, 2013. The appellant, however, seeks to assert an earlier Will of March 1, 2013 that, according to the appellant, was republished by the testator on May 22, 2013 at the time of its registration on commission. The contention of the appellant is that even though the first Will of March 1, 2013 may have been revoked upon the execution of the second Will of April 22, 2013, by virtue of the registration of the first Will on a date subsequent to the execution of the second Will, the first Will is deemed to have been revived and the second Will revoked by necessary implication.

4. The appellant submits that upon the respondent herein, who is named in the first Will as the sole executor thereof, evincing no interest to seek probate of such Will despite the appellant's request, the appellant was obliged, as the executor by default named in the first Will, to apply for probate thereof. The appellant appears to have applied accordingly in the Ali pore court. Such petition for grant of probate of the first Will has been rejected on an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the respondent herein. An appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the relevant order. The appellant claims that Section 151 of the Code could not have been invoked in the proceedings which had not turned contentious. However, the merits of the appeal may be of no concern at this stage.

5. In the affidavit in support of the caveat filed by the appellant, he recited the execution of the first Will, the registration thereof, of the appellant obtaining a certified copy of the registered Will since the respondent did not part with the original and of his application for grant of probate being filed on October 5, 2015 in Ali pore. A photocopy of the first Will was appended to such affidavit. On a reading of the first Will, it is evident that the testator appointed her husband, the respondent herein, as the sole executor of such Will and as one of the two trustees of the Trust created thereby. Such Will also provided that "if for any reason (the respondent herein) is unable to carry or act as the Sole Executor ... in such event, I appoint (the appellant herein) as the Sole Executor of my this Will to fill up the vacancy ...". It is also evident that almost the entire estate of the testator was to vest in a Trust in which the parties herein were to be the trustees. The mandate to the trustees under the first Will was to distribute the Trust properties and the usufructs therefrom to the two daughters of the testator in the manner indicated, upon their attaining the ages of 18, 25 and 30.

6. The Will propounded in the present proceedings