The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person disputing the right of a testator to deal with property as his own cannot be properly regarded as having an interest in the estate of the deceased.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The question that has been raised i regard to be a settled point--settled alike by weighty decisions and unbroken practice of the Court. But of late, I have found a tendency at the bar to raise this point, as if it is a debatable one and requires serious notice. I am delivering this considered judgment, to once for all state definitely what my view is and I am tempted to follow this course in this case on account of the lengthy argument addressed to me.

2. One Mangadi Ellappa Chetti died leaveing assets valued by the petitioners at about 10 lakhs. He is said to have left a will and this is an application for probate of that will. The following pedigree serves to explain the facts of the case.

______________________________________________________ | | Mangadi Ellappa Chetti-testator Subbaroya Died July 1927 (left no widow) | | | Kanniappa Chetti (Died 1922) M.S. Chengalroya Chetti M. Sowbagiamma. Executiix & (2nd Caveator) 1st petitioner.

Gopala Chetti M. Komalangi Chengalroya (minor) (1st Caveator) Chetti (minor)

3. The will is propounded by Sowbagiamma shown in the pedigree and her brother Thangavelu Chetti, these two persons being the executors named in the will. Caveats have been filed as shown in the pedigree by Komalangi and Chengalroya. The caveat of the latter may be summarily dismissed as he has not complied with the rules of the Court and has not cared to appear at the hearing. The former is a minor and is represented in these proceedings by her father. The petitioners take a preliminary objection, namely, that Komalangi does not possess such an interest as to support a caveat. The question I have to decide is, does she possess a sufficient interest and can she be heard as a caveator?

4. The interest alleged on her behalf is, that the testator purported to dispose of by the will, her stridhanam jewels, as if they belonged to himself. I am asked to go into the question of the ownership of these jewels and declare, by my judgment, that the deceased was not the owner and that his will in regard to them is inoperative. Two things I regard to be clearly settled by authority, firstly, that the interest alleged is not an interest as would support a caveat, secondly, that a Probate Court does not decide questions of title in regard to the property disposed of by the will.

5. The question may be thus shortly stated. The testator has disposed of property belonging to the objector. By reason of this fact, does the latter get an interest to oppose the grant of probate? One of the earliest cases, and one often cited, is Behary Lal v. Juggo Mohan (1878) ILR 4 C 1. In that case, the grant of probate was opposed on the ground that the testatrix who was a Hindu widow had only a life-interest and that her husbands property passed by survivorship to the latters brother, the caveator. The District Judge refused the application for probate, holding that the widow had no power to dispose of the properties mentioned in the will. Garth, C. J., and McDonald, J., held that upon an application for probate of a will, as long as it is made bona fide, it is not the province of the Court to go into questions of title with reference to the property of which the will purports to dispose.

The learned Judges add that the grant of probate does not confer upon the executor any title to property, which the testatrix had no right to dispose of, but that it only perfects the representative title of the executor to the property which belonged to the testatrix and over which she had a disposing power.

6. This case has been repeatedly followed in Calcutta; but I shall content myself with referring to two more decisions of that court. In Abhiram Doss v. Gopal Dass (1889) ILR 17 C 49 the caveator objected that the testator never owned the property with which the will dealt as the same belonged to a Mutt, to which the testator and the caveator belonged. The learned Judges, reversing the order of the lower court, held that a person, disputin