THOMAS P JACOB Vs. M G VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned District Judge, Kottayam by the order impugned in OP.(LA) No. 86 of 1982 held that the appellant who had entered a caveat on the basis of his alleged adverse possession was not a person having an interest in the estate of the deceased, and was, therefore, not entitled to notice under S.283(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The caveat was accordingly discharged.

(2.) The appellant described himself as an adopted son of the testator, but set forth his claim solely on the basis of his alleged title by prescription. Counsel for the appellant Shri. Balasubramanyan says that a person in possession has a perfectly good title against the whole world, except the true owner. It is therefore, in the interest of such a person to enter a caveat and contest the right of persons claiming under a Will. A judgment of a probate court being a judgment in rem, the interest of the appellant, who is in possession of the property bequeathed under the Will to the respondents, will, counsel says, be adversely affected unless he is heard before a probate is granted. Counsel for the respondents Shri C. S. Ananthakrishna Iyer, on the other hand, disputes the claim of the appellant. He says that the case of the appellant being solely based on his alleged title by prescription, he has no interest whatever to be entitled to notice of the proceedings before the probate court. If he has perfected his title by adverse possession, it would be open to him to assert his title in appropriate proceedings, but he has no right to enter a caveat and oppose the grant of probate.

(3.) S.283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 says: