Petitioner had no caveatable intend.

Ramanujam, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 28-3-1985 of Sengottuvelan, J. in Application No. 211 of 1985 in T.O.S.No. 19 of 1984, dismissing the same. The said application had been filed by the appellant herein to implead himself as second respondent in T.O.S.No. 19 of 1984 and for directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint accordingly.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the said application by the appellant may briefly be noted: One Dungarmal Bachumal Futnani died on 1st April, 1983, leaving a will and a codicil dated 28th June, 1982 and 29th March, 1983 respectively. He has left behind him two sons and eight daughters. The sons are Mohanlal D. Futnani and Vishanji Futnani. The wife of the deceased predeceased him. The first respondent herein, Mohanlal D. Futnani filed O.P.No.262 of 1984 for the issue of a probate in respect of the will claiming to be the named executor under the will. In the said O.P.No.262 of 1984 the son of the first respondent, viz., the second respondent herein, also figured as the second petitioner. The other son of the testator viz., the third respondent herein, filed a caveat and disputed the truth and genuineness of the will. Hence, the above said O.P. was converted into T.O.S.No. 19 of 1984. The properties dealt with by the said will and codicil of the deceased are situate in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta, known as "Futnani Chambers". The appellant herein, as already stated, filed Application No. 211 of 1985 for impleading himself as second respondent in T.O.S.No. 19 of 1984 on the ground that he is a necessary party to the said T.O.S. In the affidavit filed in support of his application, he has stated the following two grounds to substantiate his contention that he is a necessary party to the suit:

(1) that he is the son of the caveator and the grand-son of the testator; and

(2) that he owns a share in "Futnani Chambers" which is one of the items covered by the will and as such he has got sufficient interest in the property and to oppose the will.

The said application for impleading was opposed by respondents 1 and 2 herein on the ground that the appellant had no caveatable interest and as such, he has no locus standi to figure as a party in the T.O.S. and that in any event, it is only the father of applicant, who may claim an interest in the said property and as such, the applicant has no present interest in "Futnani Chambers" in respect of which he claims to have a share and that even if the applicant is found to own a fractional share in "Futnani Chambers" that will not entitle him to figure as a party in the T.O.S., since the interest claimed by him is independent of the testator. After considering the rival . contentions, Sengottuvelan, J. has held that as the applicant claims to be a joint owner in "Futnani Chambers" in Calcutta along with the deceased, he has no locus standi to get himself impleaded in the suit. In that view, he dismissed the application for impleading filed by the appellant, by his order dated 23rd March, 1985, The correctness of the said order of the learned Judge is being challenged in this Appeal.

3. Before us, Mr. V.P. Raman, the learned Counsel for the appellant puts forward the following three grounds as entitling the appellant to implead himself as a party-defendant in the T.O.S.:

(1) that the appellant is the grand-son of the testator and not a stranger and that but for the interception of the will, he will succeed to the estate of the deceased along with other heirs;

(2) that he is co-owner along with the deceased in the property known as "Futnani Chamber" in Calcutta, which is one of the items covered by the will and therefore, he has got sufficient interest in the estate of the deceased to come into the picture as a second defendant in the suit; and

(3) that the contesting respondents herein who had applied for the probate having admitted in the affidavit of assets filed before this Court on 17th June, 1984 that an investment of Rs. 81,115/- i