Since caveators have questioned genuineness of the will they cannot be said to have forfeited their caveatable interest.

1. Original Petition No.912 of 1999 was filed under Sections 232, 255 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, seeking the issue of Letters of Administration with the Will annexed, in respect of the last Will and Testament of Smt. R.V.R. Sivagami Amoral. The Will is stated to have been executed on 5. 1988 and the Testatrix R.V.R. Sivagami Ammal died on 17. 1992.

2. The Testatrix left behind three sons, three daughters and two grand-daughters through a pre-deceased daughter. One of the sons filed the Original Petition, seeking Letters of Administration, making his two daughters as co-petitioners 2 and 3. The sisters and brothers of the first petitioner, were cited as respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7, the daughters of one of his brothers were cited as respondent Nos.5 and 6, the daughter of another brother was cited as respondent No.8 and the grand daughters of the Testatrix through a pre-deceased daughter was cited as respondent Nos.9 and 10.

3. The respondent No.1 in the Original Petition (one of the daughters of the Testatrix) along with respondent No.9 (one of the grand-daughters of the Testatrix through a predeceased daughter) filed a caveat in Caveat Petition No.229 of 2005, along with an affidavit in support of the caveat, opposing the grant of Letters of Administration. In the affidavit in support of the Caveat Petition, the caveators (respondent Nos.1 and 9 in the Original Petition) contended among other things that the Testatrix never had any title, ownership or possession of one of the properties disposed of by Will.

4. In the light of such a stand taken by the caveators, the petitioners in the Original Petition have come up with the present Application No.18 of 2006 praying for the discharge of the caveat on the ground that the caveators have forfeited their caveatable interest on account of setting up a paramount title in themselves.

5. I have heard Mr. R. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the applicants in the present Application (petitioners in the Original Petition) and Mr. A. Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the present Application (caveators and respondent Nos.1 and 9 in the Original Petition).

6. Mr. R. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the applicants took me through the averments contained in paragraphs-2 and 3 of the affidavit of the respondents/caveators in support of the caveat. In the said paragraphs of the affidavit in support of the caveat, the caveators have contended that the property being agricultural lands in Survey Nos.1084/1, 1096/1, 1096/2A, 1097, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1108/2C, 1108/2D and 1108/2E Ayyan Kollamkondan Village, Rajapalayam Taluk, belonged absolutely to the respondent Nos.9 and 10 in the Original Petition, by virtue of an registered partition deed dated 12. 1970 and that therefore the Testatrix never had any title, ownership or possession of the lands at the time of the alleged execution of the Will.

7. In the light of such a stand taken by the caveators setting up paramount title in themselves, Mr. R. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the caveators have forfeited their caveatable interest in the matter and that therefore the caveat should be discharged. The learned counsel contended that the scope of an enquiry in the Probate proceedings is confined only to the genuineness and the validity of the Will and that the question of title can never be gone into in the Probate Proceedings.

8. In order to drive home the said point, the learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the following decisions:

1. Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh and Others, 1993 (2) SCC 507.

2. In re: N. Narasimhan and another, AIR 1975 Mad. 330.

3. Thomas P. Jacob v. M.G. Varghese and Others, AIR 1987 Ker. 193.

4. Ramyad Mahton v. Ram Bhaju Mahton, AIR 1932 Patna 89.

5. The Goods of Mrs. Lydia and Others, Mrs. Elizabeth Egbert v. A.J. Fanthome and Another, AIR 1952 All. 543.

6. M.K. Sowbagiammal and Another v. Komalangi Am