The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving interest in contesting a will, as well as the opportunity given to the defendant to prove the prior will by paying the costs incurred by the plaintiffs.

1. This was a testamentary suit brought to obtain probate of the last will and testament of the late Raja of Venkatagiri in the district of Nellore. Plaintiffs alleged that the late raja made his last will on the 3rd June 1892 and died on the 6th idem, and, as executors appointed by testator, they claimed probate. Exhibit A is the will propounded by them, and among the legacies mentioned therein, a sum of Rs. 1,000 is given to defendant Haji Muhammad Rahamtullah Saheb. He, however, filed a caveat objecting to the grant of probate on the ground that the will is not genuine; that its execution was procured by fraud, coercion or undue influence; that the testator did not know what he was doing, nor understand the nature and effect of its provisions, if in fact he signed or affixed his mark to the alleged Will. Defendant set up another will, dated the 31st May 1892, whereby it is alleged the late raja appointed Dewan Bahadur Raghunadha Row, the Honourable Mr. Humayun Jah Bahadur, C.I.E. Kummati Krishnamachari and Dewan Bahadur T. Venkasami Rao as executors. Defendant stated that that will purports to remit, inter alia, a debt of Rs. 55,000 due from him to the testator, and further, to give defendant a legacy of Rs. 5,500. He further alleged that the will relied on by him was in the possession or power of the testators sons and others, including the plaintiffs, Raja T. Rama Row and Ramakrishniah.

2. Plaintiffs application for probate of the will propounded by him was made on the 12th August 1892 and the defendants caveat was filed on the 19th idem. On the 24th January 1893 the following four issues were fixed for decision:

(i) Whether the will dated 3rd June 1892 was genuine?

(ii) Was the deceased raja at the time of executing the same of sound and disposing mind?

(iii) Is the will invalid as having been procured by fraud, coercion, undue influence or such importunity as took away his free agency in the matter?

(iv) Was it duly attested?

3. On the 7th February 1893 two more issues were framed with reference to plaintiffs averment that defendant had no interest in the estate of the late raja entitling him to intervene in the matter of their application for probate, and to call upon them to prove the will in solemn form. The additional issues are--"whether defendant has any interest in the estate of the deceased raja," and "whether it is competent to the defendant to prove such interest, if any, in this suit." The final hearing was fixed on the 3rd March for the 12th April, and it was also directed that the additional, or the fifth and sixth, issues be tried first. The suit came on for trial before Mr. Justice Shephard on the 19th April 1893, and on that day defendant applied for an adjournment in order that he might bring in the prior will set up by him, and was not ready with his evidence. The learned Judge declined to grant the application on the ground that it was made at the very last stage of the argument. Thereupon, he recorded a judgment, finding the first of the additional and preliminary issues in plaintiffs favour, and decreed that the will dated 3rd June 1892 was the last will and testament of the deceased raja, and that the probate thereof be granted to plaintiffs. Hence this appeal.

4. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal, viz., whether, apart from the prior will set up by the defendant, there is proof of defendants interest in the testators estate, and whether the learned Judge ought to have granted an adjournment to enable defendant to bring in the alleged prior will. As regards the first question, we agree with the learned Judge that, apart from that will, defendant has no interest. It is true that under the will propounded by plaintiffs, defendant is entitled to a legacy of Rs. 1,000, but this circumstance can give him no right to denounce that will and to call for proof of it in solemn form. Another contention on appellants behalf is that he claims to be also a creditor of the late raja. Adverting