HEADING: Nephew arrayed as near relative in probate proceedings possesses caveatable interest to challenge Will’s genuineness. SUMMARY: Procedural History: The petitioner challenged an order passed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Gaya, allowing a caveat filed by the respondent (the testator’s nephew) in a probate case concerning a registered Will dated 14.10.2009. Factual Background: The petitioner sought probate of a Will executed by late Ghanshyam Prasad, who died unmarried. The respondent, a nephew and Class-II heir, filed an objection alleging the Will was fraudulent and that the testator lacked title to the property. The petitioner contended that the nephew had no caveatable interest to contest the probate. Key Issues: Whether a nephew, arrayed as a "near relative" and summoned by the court, possesses a "caveatable interest" under the Indian Succession Act to contest a probate application. Court's Reasoning: 1. Definition of Caveatable Interest: Relying on *Krishna Kumar Birla vs. Rajendra Singh Lodha*, the court noted that caveatable interest depends on whether the grant of probate prejudices the objector’s rights by defeating their line of succession. 2. Effect of Court Notice: The respondent was specifically arrayed as a "near relative" in the probate petition and served with a court notice. The court held that once a person is summoned as a relative, they cannot be debarred from asserting their interest or questioning the Will's validity. 3. Status as Heir: Since the testator died unmarried and childless, the respondent (as a Class-II heir) would have an interest in the estate under the laws of intestate succession if the Will were found invalid. 4. Bona Fides: The court observed that the petitioner failed to array another surviving sister of the testator, suggesting a lack of bona fide intention. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the respondent holds a caveatable interest and is entitled to contest the probate proceedings.

The petitioner filed Probate Case No. 08 of 2015 seeking probate of a registered Will dated 14.10.2009 executed by Late Ghanshyam Prasad

The respondent, the nephew of the deceased, was arrayed as a "near relative" in the probate petition and served with a court notice

The respondent filed an objection/caveat, asserting that the deceased died unmarried and without issue, making the respondent and other Class-II heirs the legal successors to the property (House No. MIG 40, Gaya)

The respondent further alleged that the Will was fraudulent and that the petitioner had suppressed the existence of another sister of the deceased

This application seeks to quash the lower court's order dated 22.09.2015, which allowed the respondent's participation

Section 284 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which governs the filing of caveats against the grant of probate

Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008) 4 SCC 300, which establishes that "caveatable interest" is not defined by strict qualification but depends on whether the grant of probate prejudices the caveator’s right by defeating another line of succession

G. Gopal v. C. Baskar & Ors., noting that even a "slight interest" in the estate entitles a person to file a caveat

The court reasoned that since the respondent is a Class-II heir under the Hindu Succession Act, he would have a right to the property via intestate succession if the Will were found invalid

The court noted that the petitioner himself arrayed the respondent as a "near relative" and the court issued summons to him; therefore, debarring him from asserting his interest would render the summoning process meaningless

The court found that the petitioner’s failure to implead another Class-II heir (the testator's sister, Savitri Devi) suggested a lack of bona fide intention

Applying the "prejudice" test from Krishna Kumar Birla, the court determined that because the probate would defeat the respondent's potential line of succession, a substantial caveatable interest exists

the Civil Miscellaneous application was dismissed, and the lower court's order allowing the respondent's objection was upheld