In probate proceedings, the validity of the will is examined and claims regarding adoption or property title cannot be revisited if not specifically denied earlier.

JUDGMENT :

1. The applicants in Application No. 885 of 2022 in O.P. No. 638 of2008, aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2022, by which order, a learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the said application have filed the present Appeal.

2. O.P.No. 638 of 2008 had been filed seeking probate of a Will dated 16.05.1990 said to have been executed by Meena Bai, who died on 17.12.1998. The petition had been filed by the first respondent T.S.Prakash Chand Gang. It is to be mentioned that K.C.Mank Chand the husband of Meena Bai predeceased her and died on 08.04.1989. They had no children. It was claimed that Meena Bai had adopted the second respondent P.Gyanchand by an adoption deed dated 26.09.1990 registered as Document No. 400 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar, Chennai. By order dated 10.02.2009, probate was granted of the Will dated 16.05.1990 in O.P. No. 638 of 2008.

3. A.No. 885 of 2022 had been filed to revoke that order granting probate. By order dated 10.03.2022, the learned Single Judge had dismissed A.No. 885 of 2022. It had been stated that the first respondent had filed the application seeking probate on the ground that he was the executor and that the second respondent was the beneficiary and also the adopted son of the testatrix, Meena Bai. The legal heirship certificate had also been produced showing the second respondent as the legal heir. It was further held that the applicants, who are the widow and the son of the brother's son of K.C. Mank Chand, had no caveatable interest. It was also observed that whether the second respondent was the adopted son of Meena Bai or not was not the subject matter of the probate of the Will. It was also held that whether Meena Bai had handed over the property documents to the applicants was again not a subject matter of the probate proceedings. It was very clearly held that the probate proceedings were restricted only to examining the valid execution and attestation of the Will and cannot be converted to a suit for title. Holding as above, the application stood dismissed. Challenging the said order the present Appeal had been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that documents had been created that the second respondent was the adopted son of the testatrix Meena Bai. He contended that the adoption had never taken place. He further contended that the title documents of the property for which the Will had been executed were in the possession of the applicants. He further contended that the first applicant was the widow of the son of the brother of the husband of the testatrix and that therefore, she had a caveatable interest and should have been impleaded in the petition seeking grant of probate. The learned counsel contended that there are several litigations pending between the parties relating to the property and that over looking all these aspects, the application seeking to revoke the grant of probate had been wrongly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

5. We had granted sufficient and more opportunity to the learned counsels to advance arguments.

6. As a matter of fact, among other litigations pending between the parties, one was a suit for partition in C.S.No. 167 of 1997 instituted by H.Padamchand, who is also a close relative of the parties herein. The applicants herein had been impleaded as the second and fourth defendants. The first respondent had been impleaded as the sixth defendant. The second respondent had been impleaded as the eighth defendant. The second defendant had not been impleaded as the son of the first respondent but rather as the adopted son of Meena Bai, who was imp