The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to show caveatable interest to sustain a caveat in probate proceedings, as well as the fundamental nature of a probate proceeding in accepting the testator's interest and following the rules of succession.

P.K. Misra, J.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The present appellants had filed O.P.No.414 of 2004 for issuance of Letters of Administration in respect of the Will allegedly executed by Kanniammal on 38. 2000. The present Respondents 1 to 3 have filed caveat petitions in the said proceedings. At that stage, the present appellants had filed Appln.No.310 of 2005 to reject such caveat petitions on the ground that they had no caveatable interest. Such Appln.No.310 of 2005 having been rejected, the present appeal has been filed.

3. Before considering the questions involved, it is necessary to take note of the Genealogy. One Seniappan Gramani had got a daughter named Dhanakotti Ammal. Her first husband was one Govindaraja Gramini. Through the above marriage, they had a daughter named Kanniammal. On the death of the first husband Govindaraja Gramini, Dhanakotti Ammal had married one Arjuna Gramini, but there was no issue from such marriage. Kanniammal had married Veerakannu and on the death of Veerakannu, she married one Rajagopal. Kanniammal does not have any issue either from the first marriage or from the second marriage. Arjuna Gramini, who had married Dhanakotti Ammal after the death of the first husband Govindaraja Gramini, himself had earlier married one Tayarammal and through such first wife they had five sons, namely, Jayaraman, Elumalai, Balakrishnan, Radhakrishnan and Nagalingam. Two caveators respectively are son and widow of late Jayaraman and three applicants (present appellants) in the probate proceedings are respectively the widow, daughter and grandson of Ragunathan, the son of Radhakrishnan.

4. Caveators filed caveat claiming that Kanniammal, the last absolute owner of the property, had executed two deeds of settlement in favour of the caveators which had been subsequently revoked by her. However, the caveators have filed two suits before the City Civil Court numbered as O.S.Nos.7045 and 7046 of 1991 for declaration that revocation of the deeds of settlement was null and void. The dispute relating to such deeds of settlement is now pending before the High Court in Second Appeals. It is therefore claimed by them that they have caveatable interest.

5. The present appellants filed Appln.No.310 of 2005 for discharging the caveat on the ground that the caveators, who are claiming on the basis of the deeds of settlement which have been subsequently revoked, cannot succeed to the property as they cannot be considered as heirs even if the Will fails and, therefore, the caveat should be discharged.

6. Learned single Judge by taking note of the fact that the second appeals relating to the deeds of settlement and subsequent revocation are pending in the High Court, it cannot be said that there is no caveatable interest. For the aforesaid purpose, the learned single Judge has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court reported in (AIR 1972 Madras 212 = 1972(1) M.L.J. 4 (Jayakumar Vs. Ramaratnam).

7. The main question raised in the present appeal is as to whether the present respondents have any caveatable interest in the property. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a very recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2008(4) Scale 202 (Krishana Kumar Birla Vs. Rajendra Singh Lodha and Others).

8. The main contention of the caveators, which has been accepted by the learned single Judge, is to the effect that if the validity of the deeds of settlement in favour of the caveators is upheld in the pending Second Appeals, such caveators would be taken to be the lawful owners and in such event it should be concluded that the Testator had no disposable interest in the properties. The above claim of the caveators is fully supported by the observations made in AIR 1972 Madras 212 (cited supra).

9. If such a decision can be said to be still holding the field, obviously the ultimate order passed by the learned single Judge would be sustainable. Unfortunately, however, for th