A person who has an interest in the estate of a deceased person, whether intestate or claiming under a testament, has a caveatable interest.

Mishra, J.

This appeal has been,posted after notice of motion and since we have heard learned counsel for parties at length, we find it possible to dispose of the appeal itself at this stage.

2. One Padmini Chandrasekharan who died on 6. 1980 at Madras had executed a will on 20.9.1975. That will was sought to be probated in O.P.No.117 of 1981 on the file of this court under Secs.222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act. It appears that on 24. 1981 probate was issued to the plaintiff/ respondent. But on a petition by Padmini’s husband in Application No.1998 of 1982 it was revoked. In terms of an order finally passed by the Supreme Court by consent of the parties, the judgment of the Court in O.P.No.117 of 1981, dated 19. 1982 and O.S.Appeal No.96 of 1983, dated 13. 1984 were set aside and it was ordered that on the caveat filed by him, the matter would be treated as a regular testamentary suit in the Original Side of the High Court. This order was passed by the Supreme Court on 19. 1985 in Civil Appeal No.4462 of 1984. After the order and during the proceedings in the testamentary suit as ordered by the Supreme Court, Padmini’s husband Chandrasekharan died on 35. 1991. The appellants herein claiming to be heirs and legal representatives of Chandrasekharan applied for being added as defendant/caveators in place of Chandrasekharan. By the impugned order, a learned single Judge of this Court has said that the proposed parties cannot come on record as legal representatives of the deceased defendant in this action on account of the absence of any caveatable interest for them in the estate of the deceased. Padmini Chandrasekharan.

3. It is indeed a case, in our opinion, in which there is a glaring error or law apparent on the face of the record. The learned trial judge has taken notice of the interest of a person who should be cited or if an file caveat in these words.

“In Piroishabikheli v. Pestonji Morwanji, I.L.R. 34 Bom. 459, it is held that the interest which entitled a person to put in a caveat must be an interest in the estate of the deceased person, that is, there can be no dispute whatever as to the title of the deceased to the estate, but that the person who wishes to come in as the caveator may show some interest in the estate derived from the deceased by inheritance or otherwise. In Dular Kuer v. Kesar Kuer, A.I.R. 1964 Pat. 518, it is laid down that an interest or even an interest dependent upon remote contingencies was sufficient to entitle a person to oppose a will and to entitle him to citation. But the possibility of an interest should rest on existing facts and not mere conjectures. When at the time of the testator’s death he had no possible chances of succeeding to the testa tor’s estate, he has no locus standi to oppose the grant of probate. The decision in Sadananda Pyne v. Herinan Sha, A.l.R. 1950Cal. 179, states that in order to have the locus standi to apply for revocation of probate a person must have an interest in the estate of the deceased, supposing he had died intestate. A person who has merely the possession of a trespasser has no interest in the estate of the deceased. He has therefore no locus standi to file such an application.”

The rationale in those Judgments when applied to consider the locus standi of Padmini’s husband to object to the grant of probate to the plaintiff/ respondent must be found to have been in his favour. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would not have admitted him as a caveator or recognised a right in him to object to the grant of probate of the will. This cannot be disputed that any interest of a Hindu dying intestate shall vest in his heirs and his legal representatives in the order of succession and if a testament is created, a testamentary succession will follow. Chandrasekharan’s interest which gave him a right to object to the grant of probate of the will to the plaintiff/respondent, thus on his demise must be deemed to have devolved upon his heirs and legal rep