A person claiming an interest in the estate in respect of which a testament is alleged to have been executed is entitled to a citation under Section 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act, even if the interest is claimed through a contract with an orphanage and not through the deceased.

ORDER:- In O.P. No.234 of 1970, one Jayakumar prays for permission to prove in common form the Will of one Amaravathi Ammal and for the grant of probate in his favour.

2. Amaravathi Ammal, who was 83 years old at the time of the execution of the Will dated 14-4-1969 is said to have died on 6-7-1970. Under the Will, she is alleged to have bequeathed her properties worth over Rs.65000 in favour of the petitioner Jayakumar, who belongs to a different community from that of the testatrix. It is also alleged that under the Will the petitioner has been appointed as the sole executor of the testatrix.

3. After publication in the papers one Sundarammal and one Ramaratnam have entered caveat. In her affidavit in support of her caveat, Sundarammal says that the deceased testatrix was her paternal aunt and that upon the death of the testatrix, issueless, she and the sister of the deceased have inherited her estate as her heirs-at-law. She also contests the truth and validity of the Will and contends that the testatrix had no testamentary capacity at the time the will is alleged to have been executed and that the testament has been brought about by foul play.

4. Ramaratnam, in his affidavit, in support of his caveat, impugns the will and contends that he is the foster son of the deceased Amaravathi Ammal and that on or about 7-4-1943, Ratnavelu Mudaliar, the husband of Amaravathi Ammal, entered into a contract with an Orphanage at Tanjore, in pursuance of which Ramaratnam, an orphan in the Orphanage, was allowed to be taken away by Ratnavelu Mudaliar and brought up by him and Amaravathi Ammal as their own son. In O.S.1410 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, Ramaratnam instituted a suit against Ratnavelu Mudaliar, Amaravathi Ammal and the Orphange, in which he alleged that by virtue of the contract between the Orphange and Ratnavelu Mudaliar, a trust had been created in respect of the properties of Ratnavelu Mudaliar, in favour of Ramaratnam, and that the settlement deed executed by Ratnavelu Mudaliar in favour of Amavarathi Ammal on 27-7-1965 in, breach of the said trust was void and not binding upon Ramaratnam. The contention of Ramaratnam is that he has thus a caveatable interest in the suit properties.

5. The petitioner in O.P.234 of 1970 has filed Appn. No.2750 of 1970 for discharging the caveat filed by Ramaratnam on the ground that Ramaratnam has no locus standi to enter a caveat. The petitioner has also filed Appn. No.2751 of 1970 praying for the discharge of the caveat filed by Sundarammal on the same ground.

6. The point that arises for determination is whether either of the caveators has a caveatable interest in the property and is competent to challenge the petitioner in O.P.234 of 1970 to prove the Will of Amaravathi Ammal in solemn form.

7. In English practice, a testament may be proved in two ways, either in common form or in solemn form. When it is sought to be proved in common form, the executor merely presents the Will before the Judge, and without citing the parties interested, produces the proof affidavits of one or more of the attestors to the will, and the Judge, after satisfying himself on foot of the affidavits that the testament exhibited is true, proceeds to annex his probate and seal to the Will. In my view, the grant of probate in common form leads to pernicious results. I have

come across several cases on the Original Side of this Court where decades after the grant of the Probate, interested persons have applied for and succeeded in obtaining revocation of the Probate granted on the ground that the will is ungenuine or had not been executed in a sound disposing state of mind. But by the time the revocation is sought, most of the contemporaneous evidence relating to the will would have

disappeared and the grantee of the probate would have wrought irremediable mischief by acting upon the grant, which whether granted in common form or solemn form, operates in rem. On the contrary, when the will