K R SURESH BABU Vs. S VADIVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Application No,2923 of 2008 in O.P.No,599 of 2003 whereby the application seeking to discharge the caveator/appellant filed by the respondent herein was allowed.

(2.) THE appeal came to be filed on the following facts and circumstances. THE petitioner who is the respondent herein filed O.P. seeking for grant of probate in respect of the last will of the testatrix dated 3.2.2001. THE petitioner is the executor appointed under the Will. THE O.P. was filed on 25.4.2007. Subsequent to the representation, it was taken on file on 21.7.2007. THEn, O.P. was taken up on 19.3.2008 and the matter was posted for recording evidence. P.W.1 was examined along with the attesting witness P.W.2 and 11 exhibits were marked on the side of the petitioner. On 1.4.2003, P.W.3, the second attesting witness was examined and Ex.P12 was also marked. At that stage, Caveat No,48 of 2008 was filed by Sakuntala Sambandam and D. Sambandam and the same was taken up for consideration. Another Caveat in Caveat No,84 of 2007 was filed by one kalaraj and another Caveat No,85 of 2007 was filed by Ananthakumar. All the caveats were taken up for consideration. After rejection of those caveat petitions, the matter reached the final stage. At that time, the Caveat No,57/2008 was filed by Suresh Babu, the appellant herein, claiming to be the brother of the testatrix's husband. He filed an affidavit in support of the application alleging that he was proper and necessary party to be impleaded. He has also contended that since there was no Class-I heirs for the testatrix and as he is the textatrix husband's brother, he is class II heir and opportunity has to be given to him in the proceedings in the O.P. THE petitioner in the O.P. filed an application No,2923 of 2008 to discharge the caveator/appellant. Both the parties were heard and the materials were looked into by the learned single Judge and the learned Single Judge took a view that the appellant has no caveatable interest and allowed Application No,2923 of 2008 which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

(3.) THE Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made on either side.