G M MASCARENHAS Vs. R VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has questioned the competence of the caveat or and objects to the caveat. Petitioner applied on 31-7-1989, under the Indian Succession Act, ('the Act' ) for the grant of a probate in respect of the Will left by Miss. Medappa; one of the items of the estate of the deceased is a school called 'Home School', in Bangalore. THE petition was advertised in Times of India (Bangalore edition) dated 2-9-1989. THE Caveator filed his Caveat on 18-8-1989 wherein only a cryptic statement was made to the effect that nothing be done in the matter of the estate of the deceased without notice to the Caveator. THE Caveator also filed LA. No. I seeking a direction to the State Bank of India not to permit the petitioner or anyone claiming under him to operate the S.B. Account which was a joint S.B. Account opened by the deceased along with the Caveator (obviously, in connection with the administration of the Home School). LA. No. II is filed by the Caveator seeking permission to amend the Statement of Objections. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the locus standi of the Caveator, contending that, the Caveator has not disclosed his interest in the estate of the deceased, and that, in case, he was claiming a paramount title over any of the property, his remedy is elsewhere. THE learned counsel for the Caveator, contended that, the Caveator was a joint proprietor of the Home School and there were litigations between the deceased and the Caveator; in these circumstances, he was vitally interested in opposing the grant of probate. THErefore, the question to be considered at this stage, pertains to the maintainability of the caveat and the locus standi of the Caveator to lodge the caveat. Section 283(1)(c) contemplates issuance of citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration. Section 284(1) states that caveats against the grant of probate or administration may be lodged. THE caveat is to be "as nearly as circumstances admit" to be in the form set forth in Schedule V to the Act. Nothing turns out of this form of caveat, because it is only a form in general terms, though Mr. Vijayashankar tried to sustain support from it to his contention; the generality of the form cannot widen the scope of the main provision, if, otherwise, said main provision does not permit a wider scope to it. THE question pertains to the nature of the requirements entitling a person to lodge caveat against grant of probate or letters of administration. THE scope of a caveat requires disclosure of materials to show that probate should not be granted to the Will.