A person with an interest in the estate can apply to intervene in testamentary proceedings, as the judgment in probate proceedings is a judgment in rem, and not a judgment in personam.

( 1 ) THE appellant claims to be the purchase of property "padma Bhawan" situated at Raipur Chhatisgarh, which is a part of the estate of late Rani Padmawati Devi, who died intestate on 12. 4. 87.

( 2 ) IT is the contention of the appellant that it had negotiated and entered into a sale deed dated 11. 10. 1988 for purchase of the said property for a total consideration of Rs. 35 lacs, with the Administrator of the Estate being one of her sons viz Raja Shivendra Bahadur Singh (now deceased ).

( 3 ) THE appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 17. 1. 2002 passed by the learned single judge of this court rejecting appellant s application (I. A. No. 490/99) filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC, with the prayer to be allowed to intervene, or to be made a party in the pending proceedings for grant of letters of administration without Will.

( 4 ) THE said petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act filed by Shivendra Bahadur Singh for grant of letters of administration to the estate or Rani Padmavati was registered and numbered as Probate case No. 43 of 1987.

( 5 ) ON 10th May 1988, by an order of learned Single Judge of this court, Raja Shivendra Bahadur Singh was appointed as an Administrator pendente lite.

( 6 ) ON the purported authority of the said appointment as Administrator pendente lite, Raja Shivendra Bahadur Singh is alleged to have negotiated and entered into sale transaction with the appellant purportedly for the purposes of utilising the sale consideration, for meeting the wealth tax and income tax dues/liabilities of the estate of late Rani Padmawati Devi. Sale deed is also alleged to have been executed and sale consideration duly received.

( 7 ) ON the very next day, i. e. on 12. 10. 1988 on an application filed by another son Ravindra Bahadur Singh, Ld. Single Judge restrained the said Administrator (Shivendra Bahadur Singh) from transferring, alienating or parting with possession of the properties, which form subject matter of the estate of Rani Padmavati.

( 8 ) IT is the case of the appellant that on 21. 12. 1988 the said Administrator also filed a statement of account in this Court, reflecting the receipt of Rs. 35 lacs by the estate on account of sale of Padma Bhawan to the appellant.

( 9 ) IT is the further case of the appellant that during pendency of those proceedings, and notwithstanding the sale deed already standing in favour of the appellant, the other son Ravindra Bahadur Singh, sold a part of the property known as Padma Bhawan, by a sale deed dated 29. 7. 1997, to one M/s Jespur Construction Company Private Limited, for a total consideration of about Rs. 21 lacs. This amount, the appellant claims was not accounted for in the estate of late Rani Padmawati. The sale deed also, in its recital, did not refer to the proceedings pending before the learned Single Judge.

( 10 ) IT is also the case of the appellant that on coming to know about the sale, the Administrator immediately filed an appiication (I. A. No. 10437/97), wherein by order dated 19. 2. 1998 learned Single Judge restrained the said brother Ravindra Bahadur Singh and other respondent from alienating, disposing or parting with the possession of the properties belonging to the estate.

( 11 ) THE appellant also claims to have instituted a suit before the Civil Court at Raipur for mandatory injunction and declaration as regards the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Ravindra Bahadur Singh in favour of M/s Jespur Construction Company Private Limited as being ab initio void. The said suit is still pending before the Civil Court at Raipur.

( 12 ) RAJA Shivendra Bahadur Singh, the plaintiff and administrator pendente lite before the Single Judge, died on 31. 12. 1998 and thereupon the appellant in order to protect its interests filed the said application (IA 490/99), seeking intervention/impleadment in the pending probate case.

( 13 ) THE appellant also preferred another application (I. A. No. 5054/99) for appointment of admini