A caveator cannot challenge the title of the testator in probate proceedings. The Probate Court is only concerned with the due execution and attestation of the will and the testator's mental capacity at the time of execution.

1. :- This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1st September, 1984, passed by the District Judge, Alwar, in a petition for grant of probate filed by non-petitioner, Chhitarmal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order 1st September, 1984.

3. It is alleged that the deceased, Smt. Kishan Pyari executed a will on 2nd September, 1978, in favour of the non-petitioner, Chhitarmal. Chhitar Mal applied for the grant of probate. Smt. Kaushlya caveator raised an objection under Section 283(c) of the Indion Succession Act that she may be allowed to contest the grant of probate on the ground that a part of the property did rot belong to the testatrix. It was submitted by the caveator that the disputed part of the property was of the ownership of her father and after the death of her father she became the sole owner. An objection was raised by the counsel for Chhitarmal, non-petitioner, that Smt. Parvati is having no locus standi and she cannot raise objection which she is raising in the probate proceedings.

4. Mr. R.M. Lodha with all fairness cited before me two cases of the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court in G. Jayakumar v. R. Ramaratnam AIR 1973 Madras 212, in which it has been held that such objection can be raised by the caveator. However, subsequently in the case of In Re N. Narssimhan it was held after considering the various authorities as under:

"In a probate proceeding a caveator will not be entitled to raise title in himself to the whole or any part of the estate of the deceased. The interest in the estate of the deceased mentioned in Section 283 is that interest which by citation a person called upon may claim to have in the estate of the deceased and not the interest which the deceased did not own, but the claimant coming into picture by citation claims to be vested in himself. The test for purpose of Section 283(1)(c) is that a person disputing the right of a testator to deal with the property as his own, cannot properly be regarded as having an interest in the estate of the deceased. A caveator is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant and cannot by mere citation be allowed to convert a probate proceeding into a suit for resolving disputed title."

5. Thus, the Madras High Court held that a caveator is neither plain-tiff nor defendant and cannot by mere citation be allowed to convert a probate proceeding into a suit far resolving disputed title.

6. Mr. M.I. Khan, counsel for the opposite party, has cited before me the case of Madho Singh v. Jagdambalal AIR 1960 Rai 237 in which this Court has held as under:

"In probate proceedings, there is no necessity for an enquiry whether the person who makes a will had any title to the property which he bequeathed. All that the Court is concerned, is to find out whether the document set up as a will was properly executed by the person he was in a sound mind and knew the consequence of his act."

7. In I.M. Madhavi v. Sree Rama Verma AIR 1969 Kerala 256 , it was held that caveat sought to be sustained on the ground that testator had no disposing power over items in annexure. caveator not being one interested in personal assets of deceased was not entitled to oppose grant of Letters of Administration.

8. Mr. Khan has cited the case of D.S. Sriramiah in which it has been held as under:

"Person claiming the property by paramount title or adversely to testator of disputing testator's right to deal with the property sought to be disposed of by the will in respect of which probate or letters of administration with the will annexed is asked for has no locus standi to enter a caveat.

9. Mr. Khan has also cited the case of Panna Banerjee v. Kali Kinkor AIR 1974 Calcutta 126 in which it was held that a probate is conclusive on the question of the valid execution of the will. But the Probate Court has no power to go into the question of title of the testator.

10. Mr. Khan cited before me the case of Rao Sons v. Chandramoni