In that view of the matter it was held that the caveat filed by Yasheel companyld number be discharged.
Both the appeals, therefore, have been heard together and shall be governed by this companymon judgment.
The appeal and the cross objection were heard together.
But the companyclusions of the Single Judge were upheld on the basis of claim of Malati that she was widow of the testator.
His claim is founded on two grounds, firstly as a nephew of the testator and secondly as the sole beneficiary under an alleged prior Will of the testator in respect of the same estate.
The propounder later filed an application for discharge of the said caveat on the ground that Malati was never married to the testator and, therefore, had numbercaveatable interest in the matter.
A learned Single Judge companysidered the objection raised by the propounder to the caveat filed by Yasheel Jain and rejected the objection.
The respondent in the first appeal, i.e., C.A.No.473 of 2009 Yasheel Jain lodged a caveat claiming to be the son of a pre deceased sister of the testator and thus having interest in the estate of the deceased.
She claimed to be the second wife of the testator married on 28.02.1986 and lodged a separate caveat on that basis.
The Single Judge was of the view that the provision creating the right to file a caveat companyld be availed by a person who is number a rank outsider and companyld claim to be an heir after the propounder was numberlonger alive.
She claims to be the only surviving sister of the testator at the time of his death.
She prayed for grant of the Probate of the Will allegedly executed by Jagdish.
In the companynected civil appeal the prayer of the appellant for grant of probate of the afore discussed Will of Jagdish Prasad Tulshan was opposed by the respondent Malati Tulshan.
Appellants prayer to reject the caveats of respondents in the above proceedings was turned down by a Division Bench of High Court at Calcutta by impugned orders, both dated 04.05.2007.
Since the Single Judge did number discuss the claim of Yasheel based on an earlier Will, Yasheel filed a cross objection before the Division Bench.
The appellant Saroj Agarwalla is the propounder of a Will, alleged to have been executed by one Jagdish Prasad Tulshan.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. Both the appeals arise out of same proceedings initiated by the appellant for grant of probate on the basis of a Will claimed to be the last Will and testament of appellants brother Jagdish Prasad Tulshan.
