A challenge to the testator's title does not confer caveatable interest for revocation of probate.

The testator, Rajeshwari Nagarkar, executed a Will on August 23, 2005, bequeathing certain properties in Satara to her son-in-law (the Applicant) and others to her children

Following her death in 2008, the named Executor obtained probate from the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, on December 13, 2011

In 2013, the Respondents (testator’s brother and nephew) filed Miscellaneous Application No. 616/2013 seeking revocation of the probate under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925

They contended that the testator lacked title to the properties, alleging that a prior Will by the family matriarch (Radhabai) in favor of the testator had been superseded by a subsequent Will in favor of the Respondents

The Applicant challenged the maintainability of this revocation application, arguing that a challenge to the testator's title does not constitute a "caveatable interest"

The Trial Court rejected the Applicant’s objection twice, most recently on December 20, 2022, holding the revocation application maintainable

1. Whether a probate revocation application is maintainable when the primary ground is a challenge to the testator's title to the bequeathed properties (i.e., whether the Respondents possess a "caveatable interest")

2. Whether a probate grant is invalid or beyond jurisdiction if the Will was executed and properties located outside the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court

The court primarily applied Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, regarding the revocation of probate

It relied extensively on the principle established in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008) 4 SCC 300, which mandates that a caveator must show a "caveatable interest"—meaning the probate must prejudice a right by defeating a line of succession

The court noted that a person questioning the testator’s title is a stranger to probate proceedings

This was supported by Saroj Agarwalla v. Yasheel Jain (2017) 14 SCC 285

Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon v. Hardyal Singh Dhillon (2007) 11 SCC 357, which clarified that Probate Courts cannot adjudicate title disputes

Regarding jurisdiction, the court applied Mahesh N. Bhat v. Mark Uppaluri (2018) SCC OnLine Bom 9891, holding that while probate is optional for Wills executed outside Presidency towns under Section 57, it is not prohibited

The Court analyzed the apparent conflict between Krishna Kumar Birla and G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar (2008) 10 SCC 489

It reconciled the two by noting that G. Gopal involved caveators who would have inherited through the testator via a settlement deed, whereas the Respondents in the present case claimed title adverse to the testator

Applying the K.K. Birla test, the Court held that the Respondents' claim—that the testator never owned the property—renders them "strangers" to the probate proceeding because they do not assert a right through a line of succession of the testator

The Court emphasized that a Probate Court’s jurisdiction is limited to determining the genuineness and due execution of the Will, not the testator's ownership

Furthermore, the Court rejected the Respondents' argument that the probate was "superfluous" or "invalid" due to the location of the properties (Satara) and execution (Pune), clarifying that the law makes probate optional, not prohibited, in such regions

It held that Miscellaneous Application No. 616/2013 was not maintainable because the Respondents, by questioning the testator's title rather than their status as intestate heirs, lacked a caveatable interest

The Court dismissed the revocation application, noting that the Respondents’ remedy lies in their already instituted substantive title suit