Judgment :- 1. This is an application filed by Smt. Latha Mageswari and Selvi Amutha for impleading themselves as defendants 2 and 3 in the above T.O.S. The T.O.S. itself is for the grant of Letters of Administration in respect of a Will dated 27-4-1983 alleged to have been executed by one Kanniappa Naiker. 2. It is alleged in the affidavit that the applicants are daughters of late Devaraj, through his second wife, who is the sole defendant in the present T.O.S., that they are the grand daughters of late Kanniappa Naicker, born to his adopted son Devaraj, that Kanniappa Naicker executed a registered settlement deed on 6-4-1960 and that as per the terms of the settlement deed, he had given a life interest to his wife Pattammal and vested right, title and interest to the male and female issue of Devaraj, that Kanniappa Naicker died in the year 1984 and Pattammal in the year 1989, that as per the terms of the settlement deed, the applicants herein would be entitled to 2/3rd share in the household properties and the remaining 1/3rd share would vest in Purushothaman, the husband of the plaintiff in the present suit. It is further alleged that they came to know about the proceedings only recently and that Kanniappa Naicker having executed a settlement deed, had no authority or power to revoke the same and that the Will therefore is not true or valid. It is contended that since they have a caveatable interest, the applicants are entitled to be impleaded as party defendants in the present suit. 3. The application is opposed by the plaintiff contending inter alia that the mother of the applicants is already on record, that she is contesting the Probate proceedings, that disputed questions relating to title cannot be gone into in the present Probate proceedings and that the application for adding the proposed parties for the purpose of establishing their rights, title and interest under the settlement deed dated 6-4-1990 is wholly misconceived. According to the learned Counsel Mr. V. Swaminathan by allowing the applicants to be impleaded as party defendants, the scope of the proceedings would get enlarged and that extraneous issues would cause prejudice to the plaintiff. 4. According to the learned Counsel Mr. V. Swaminathan by allowing the applicants to be impleaded as party defendants, the scope of the proceedings would get enlarged and that extraneous issues would cause prejudice to the plaintiff. 4. It is no doubt true that in testamentary suits what is to be investigated is the disposing state of mind of the testator or testatrix and the disposition of his or her properties by Will. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision N. Narasimham v. N. Sitharamaiyer In the matter of the Last Will and Codicil of Smt. N. Venkataramanan (1975-1-M.L.J. 379=88 L.W. 253). The Bench has indeed laid down the preposition that. “In the probate proceeding a caveator will not be entitled to raise title in himself to the whole or any part of the estate of the deceased, that the interest in the estate of the deceased mentioned in Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act is but that interest which by citation a person called upon may claim to have in the estate of the deceased and not in the interest which the deceased did not own, but the claimant coming into the picture by citation claims to be vested in himself. In other words, the title of the testator or testatrix to the whole or any part of the property which is the subject matter of disposition, is entirely and necessarily outside the scope of probate proceedings and that question will have to be settled by a regular trial.” The Bench has however further held that, “A person claims interest in the estate of the testatrix will have the locus standi to maintain the caveat, the scope of the caveat enquiry being no more than what it is in that of the probate proceedings themselves.” 5. In the present case, the applicants would indeed be entitled to claim their share in the properties subject matter of the Will, under the settlement deed or even de hors the settlement deed if it is established that the Will is not true, genuine or validly executed. Further, it is well established that an adjudication in an application or suit for obtaining probate or Letters of Administration, would operate as a judgment in rem so far as the genuineness or otherwise of the Will is concerned and would bind not only the parties to the proceedings but also other person. Further, it is well established that an adjudication in an application or suit for obtaining probate or Letters of Administration, would operate as a judgment in rem so far as the genuineness or otherwise of the Will is concerned and would bind not only the parties to the proceedings but also other person. I am of the opinion that the applicants are persons ‘interested’ and therefore are necessary parties t o the present proceedings and by their being impleaded as defendants 2 and 3 no prejudice at all would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. In that view, the application is ordered. The applicants are directed to be impleaded as defendants 2 and 3. Necessary amendment in the plaint to be carried out within two weeks from today. The newly impleaded defendants to file their written statement within three weeks from today. 6. Post the T.O.S. for trial on the 6th March, 1997.