A person outside the line of succession lacks caveatable interest to contest probate.

Sarojini petitioned for probate of a Will dated 26 April 1999, said to have been executed by M. Subramaniyan.

After the matter was contested, it proceeded as T.O.S. No. 40 of 2001.

Following the deaths of Sarojini and the contesting defendant, Kamala, Rajavelu sought Letters of Administration, and Thilagavathy—Kamala’s sister’s daughter—was impleaded as a defendant.

The Single Judge granted Letters of Administration to Rajavelu. Thilagavathy appealed, alleging that the Will was unproved and surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

Whether Thilagavathy had a caveatable interest to maintain the appeal.

Whether execution of the Will, Ex. P1, had been proved.

Whether suspicious circumstances surrounded the execution of the Will.

Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a Will must be executed and attested in accordance with the statutory requirements; the propounder must prove due execution, including through an attesting witness.

A person seeking to oppose or revoke a grant must have a caveatable interest—such as a claim under the testator or a likelihood of inheriting the estate (Ramani U. Krishnan v. Dr. Ammini Praveen Joshua @ Veena).

A Will is not to be rejected merely on assumed suspicion where the statutory proof is satisfied and the transaction is not unnatural (Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage).

Disinheritance of a wife may be suspicious depending on the circumstances, particularly where the Will favours a stranger or distant relative (Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass).

The Court also considered the parties’ succession positions under the Hindu Succession Act.

The Court held that Thilagavathy, as the niece of the testator’s wife, would not inherit while the testator’s children were available; it therefore found she had no caveatable interest.

On the merits, Kamala’s written statement alleged undue influence and coercion but did not deny execution, and the Court found that the attesting witness’s evidence satisfied Section 63. It also found no evidence establishing coercion or undue influence.

The signature variations were not material, given the comparison with later service-register entries and the attesting witness’s evidence; the asserted relationship-related concerns and other inconsistencies did not undermine proof of the Will.

The Will favoured the testator’s son, not a stranger, and the Court considered the pension provision for Kamala relevant in rejecting the disinheritance-based suspicion.

It dismissed the appeal, confirmed the grant of Letters of Administration to Rajavelu, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.