JUDGMENT : A. Banerji, J. This appeal has been filed u/s 299 of the Indian Succession Act challenging an order dated 27-10-1979 passed by the District Judge Azamgarh. This was an application for review of an order dated 15-9-1979 passed by the District Judge. It was urged that by order passed by the District Judge in exercise of powers under the testamentary jurisdiction was appealable and as such the present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the appeal was not maintainable for the order rejecting the review application was not appealable under any provisions of the Indian Succession Act. It was further contended that Smt. Parbati Devi claimed to be a daughter of Sri Ram Prasad and after the death of Ram Prasad she was claiming a share in the property which had come to Ram Prasad from his mother Smt. Bharta Kuer through a Will; on behalf of the Respondents it was urged that testamentary case in the Court of the District Judge was in respect of the estate of Smt. Bharta Kuer, deceased mother of Ram Prasad and Smt. Parbati Devi, the Appellant in this Court was not even mentioned as a legatee under the aforesaid Will and as such she had no right, title or interest to make the application in the proceedings before the testamentary Court. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and I am satisfied that the appeal is wholly mis-conceived as also the application made by Smt. Parbati Devi in the Court below. 4. The relevant facts are that Smt. Bharta Huer executed a will on 16-6-1963 and sought to dispose of 5 of her properties, two of which were situated in district Azamgaih and the other three, in Calcutta. Under the Will she gave one house property in Azamgaih to Smt. Lalloo Devi wife of Ran Prasad, her SOD. Another property at Azamgaih was bequeathed to her three sons, Bam Prasad, Shiv Prasad and Ganga Prasad. One property in Calcutta was bequeathed to Ram Prasad and the other two properties in Calcutta were bequeathed equally to the other two sons, Shiy Prasad and Ganga Prasad. On her death, Bam Prasad moved an application for grant of a probate. Another property at Azamgaih was bequeathed to her three sons, Bam Prasad, Shiv Prasad and Ganga Prasad. One property in Calcutta was bequeathed to Ram Prasad and the other two properties in Calcutta were bequeathed equally to the other two sons, Shiy Prasad and Ganga Prasad. On her death, Bam Prasad moved an application for grant of a probate. The matter was pending before the District Judge who was exercising the powers of testamentary court when Sri Ram Prasad died. Smt. Lalloo Devi, widow of Bam Prasad then stepped in, to pursue the petition for the grant of probate in place of Bam Prasad. While this proceeding was pending before the District Judge, Smt. Paibati Devi filed an objection 16/C2 dated 8-9-1978 in which she stated that Bern Prasad died on 31-8-1972 and she was one of his heirs and that Smt. Lallco Devi did not pursue the substitution proceedings in accordance with law and left her cut. Further, that Shiv Prasad and Ganga Prasad were in collusion with Smt. Lalloo Devi and further proceedings in the matter of the grant of probate should only be done after the substitution proceedings had been done in accordance with law. She also raised another ejection that the Estate Duty certificate which bad been filed in the case related to the estate of Smt. Bbarta Kuer and no certificate was filed in respect of the estate of Bam Prasad. This objection of Smt. Paibati Devi was rejected by an order dated 15-9-1979. The application 16/C2 was rejected. Thereafter Smt. Parbati Devi the Appellant bad moved a fresh application claiming that the was the daughter of Bam Prasad, a fact which (be bad not disclosed in her application 16/C2. 'In support of her stand that she was a daughter of Bam Prasad she filed some documentary evidence. The learned District Judge considered the matter and held that Smt. Parbati Devi was not a daughter of Bam Prasad. Her application was accordingly rejected. After this order was passed, Smt. Parbati Devi moved an application for the review of the above order and sought to file further evidence. The Court below rejected the application for review giving reasons. It is against the above order that the present appeal has been filed. 5. Her application was accordingly rejected. After this order was passed, Smt. Parbati Devi moved an application for the review of the above order and sought to file further evidence. The Court below rejected the application for review giving reasons. It is against the above order that the present appeal has been filed. 5. This appeal was admitted in this Court on 24-1-1980 and then an Interim order vas also passed requiring Smt. Lallco Devi to furnish security to safe guard the interest of Smt. Parbati Devi, when the probate is granted. After this order was tasted the District Judge held that the valuation of the property which was to come to Bam Prasad approximately at Rs. 70,000/- and directed Smt. Parbati Devi to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-. It was held in the order dated 25-4-1980 that Bam Prasad had left behind two sons, 3 daughters and a widow and if Smt. Parbati Devi was considered to be a daughter of his, her share could be at the most one seventh. Thereafter, the District Judge preceded to consider the application for the grant of probate and by an order dated 19-9-1980 directed the grant of the probate. 6. It is well established that objections to the grant of probate could be filed by a party initiated therein by filing a caveat. In the present case no such caveat was filed. As a matter of fact there is nothing to show that the other legatees bad filed any objection to the prayer made by Bam Prasad for the grant of the probate. When Bam Prasad died, an application for substitution was moved on behalf of Smt. Lalloo Devi, his widow. As a matter of fact, no substitution application was necessary. Only a person named as an executor in the will could pursue the petition for the grant of probate. Any other person could ask for the grant of a Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. Any cue interested could have asked the testamentary court to treat him/her as the Petitioner. Smt. Lalloo Devi's application was, therefore, to be considered as such. Toe question of substitution of the heirs of the deceased Ram Prasad was, therefore, not warranted. 7. Any other person could ask for the grant of a Letters of Administration with the Will annexed. Any cue interested could have asked the testamentary court to treat him/her as the Petitioner. Smt. Lalloo Devi's application was, therefore, to be considered as such. Toe question of substitution of the heirs of the deceased Ram Prasad was, therefore, not warranted. 7. All the heirs of Ram Prasad would get a share of the property bequeathed by Smt. Bharta Kuer only after the will was upheld and the probate or Letters of Administration was granted and the legatees got their share. They could not claim any share out of the Will of Smt. Bharta Kuer, for she had not mentioned any of the grand children as legatees. Judged on this ground Smt. Parbati Devi was neither a legatee nor a person interested in the Will executed by Smt. Bharta Kuer. She had no locus standi. Her remedy, if any, lay in filing a separate suit claiming to be an heir of Rim Prasad. She had not instituted any such suit and the objections died by her, 16/02 were wholly misconceived. 8. Any testatory has a right to dispose of his property in any manner he likes. He may bequeath his property to his heirs or even an outsider even excluding the heirs and legal representatives wholly or partly. The question to be considered in a petition for the grant of probate is to see whether the testator had executed the Will duly and in accordance with law. In the probate proceedings the Court has to find out whether there were any suspicious circumstances in the execution of the will and if so, whether the same had been allayed by the propounded There is no question of an heir or alleged heir of a legatee claiming a share in the property or filing an objection to the grant of probate unless it was claimed that the will was fraudulently drawn up or the testator had no power to execute a Will re. the property and he/she was deprived of his/her share. In the normal course the heirs of a legatee would have no right to claim anything so long as the legatee was alive. It is only when the legatee died intestate that a right accrued in their favour in the property in the hand of the said legatee. 9. the property and he/she was deprived of his/her share. In the normal course the heirs of a legatee would have no right to claim anything so long as the legatee was alive. It is only when the legatee died intestate that a right accrued in their favour in the property in the hand of the said legatee. 9. In the present case when Smt. Parbati Devi moved the objection 16/02, Probate of the estate of Smt. Bharta Kuer had not been granted. Consequently, the legatees had not received their legacy by then. On the grant of the probate each legatee would be entitled to the property bequeathed in his/her favour. The executor or the administrator, as the case may be, was enjoined under the law to administer the property and give each legatee the property bequeathed under the Will. 10. As soon as the probate or a Letters of Administration granted a right crystalises in the hands of the legatee. If any legatee dies, his heirs would be entitled to the property which came to him as a legacy. It is only then that the heirs can claim a share in that property. The effort of Smt. Parbati Devi in the present case to establish her right as an heir of Ram Prasad even before the grant of the probate was wholly misconceived, because such an application in a proceeding for the grant of probate is unwarranted. The objection and the applications filed by her to establish that she was a daughter of Ram Prasad in these proceedings were wholly un-called for. If she had any right as an heir of deceased Ram Prasad her remedy lay in filing a suit for declaration and for consequential relief. For these reasons I find no merit in the objection and the applications moved by Smt. Parbati Devi the Appellant. 11. The other question is about the maintainability of the appeal. The present appeal has been filed u/s 299 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This Section reads as follows: 299. Appeals from orders of District Judge. Every order made by a District Judge by virtue of the powers hereby conferred upon him shall be subject to appeal to the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals. 12. This Section reads as follows: 299. Appeals from orders of District Judge. Every order made by a District Judge by virtue of the powers hereby conferred upon him shall be subject to appeal to the High Court in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to appeals. 12. It is evident from the above that every order, pawed by the District Judge is not appealable except those which are irate in exercise of the powers conferred by the Act en him. The appeal would of course lie to the High Court from the order of the District Judge in accordance with the provisions of the CPC as applicable to appeals. This means that once an appeal is filed in the High Court the provisions relating to appeals-will govern it. But the question is against what orders the appeal would lie Section 299 makes it clear that the order has to be one which it passed in exercise of the power conferred upon District Judge by the Act. There is nothing in the Act which permits a review of an order by the District Judge. Further, there is no provision in the Act which permits the District Judge to entertain an application or decide the Question of heirship of a deceased legatee. In this view of the matter the impugned order dated 27-10-1979 was not appealable and as such the present appeal is also not maintainable. 13. For the reasons indicated above this appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed, but I leave the parties to bear their own costs.