Creditors of the heirs-at-law of a testator have locus standi to lodge caveats in response to a general citation issued under Section 283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

ORDER :- Iswar Lanka, the testator, died on 28-11-61 leaving behind a son Lingaraj and a daughter Saraju Kumari. Chandramoni is the wife of Lingaraj. Chandramoni filed an application on 20-10-65 before the District Judge, Cuttack in Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 1965 (Probate) alleging therein that Iswar Lanka executed an unregistered Will in her favour on 15-6-61, whereunder the properties mentioned in schedule 'A' of the application were disposed of in her favour. Those properties covered a pucca double-storeyed building in Cuttack town and kutcha and pucca houses in village Kuspangi in Banki P. S. Any reference to the details of these properties would not be relevant. The main averment in the application was that Chandramoni was named as the executor of the Will which was executed by the testator out of his own freewill, without any coercion or inducement or threat by anybody, and that the testator was in a sound state of mind, health and understanding when he executed the will, and that the Will was duly executed. The deceased was said to have left, at the time of his death, two near relatives Lingaraj and Saraju Kumari. Chandramoni prayed for grant of a probate of the Will. By order No. 16 dated 9-5-66, the District Judge directed the issue of citations both general and special, fixing 1-7-66 for return. On that day, citations both special and general, were again directed to be issued fixing 3-8-66 for return. The order dated 3-8-66 shows that special citations were duly served on Lingaraj and the general citations were duly published. On 17-8-66 Lingaraj and Saraju Kumari filed written statements, fully admitting all the averments in the application and clearly stating that the properties which are the subject-matter of the Will belonged to the deceased. On 19-12-66 one Banamali Behera lodged a caveat. He averred in the caveat that the Will was forged and fabricated and did not contain the thumb impression of the testator. It was said that the testator knew to read and write very well and had never a shaky-hand. Furthermore, there was an assertion that the properties comprised in the Will belonged to Lingaraj and not to the testator. Lingaraj was heavily involved in debts exceeding 2 lakhs of rupees and Banamali Behera the caveator was one of the creditors who obtained a money decree for Rs. 11,000/-in M. S. No. 396 of 1963 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, on 28-2-64. He attached some of the properties covered by the Will for Rs. 12,000/- in Execution Case No. 35 of 1966. Chandramoni filed an objection under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. in Misc. Case No. 257 of 1966 on 15-10-66. On 15-1-67, Messrs. Rao and Sons, Bankers of Kaligalli. Cuttack filed another caveat, alleging that the Will was forged, giving various reasons in support of the plea of forgery. On 24-7-64 they had filed Money Suit No. 244 of 1964 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000/- and odd from Lingaraj and the same was decreed on 2-11-65. On 27-11-65 Execution Case No. 14 of 1965 was filed.

Thus both Banamali Behera and Messrs. Rao and Sons who filed caveats are creditors of Lingaraj.

2. On the aforesaid pleadings the following issues were framed:-

1. Is the alleged Will a genuine and valid document?

2. Is the Will duly executed and attested?

3. Has the caveator any locus standi to contest the Probate proceeding?

4. To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled?

The probate case had been transferred by the District Judge, to the file of the Addl. District Judge, Cuttack who heard issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue and held that the two creditors had no locus standi and rejected their caveats. It is against this order that Messrs. Rao and Sons have filed Civil Revision No. 148 of 1968 and Banamali Behera has filed Civil Revision No. 198 of 1968.

4. The question of law is common to both the civil revisions and this is why both of them were analogously

heard.

5. The only point for consideration is whether the c