Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2184 (MAD)

A. Jayaveerapandian v. R. Rengarajan and others

2003-12-31

V.KANAGARAJ

body2003
COMMON ORDER: Application No.4266 of 1999 has been filed by a third party to the proceedings praying to implead him as party respondent in the above original petition. Application No.3843 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner in the main O.P. praying to dismiss the above Application No.4266 of 1999. 2. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that the first respondent in Application No.4266 of 1999, who is the applicant in Application No.3843 of 2003 viz., R.Rangarajan has filed the main O.P. under Secs.222 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 praying to probate the last Will and Testament dated 10.2.1993 of one Albert Holmes Sargunar as against the wife, son and the adopted daughter of the said Albert Holmes Sargunar on averments such as that the deceased Albert Holmes Sargunar had executed his last Will and Testament dated 10.2.1993 thereby appointing the petitioner as the sole executor thus bequeathing the only item of the immovable property in the city at No.S-8, M.G.R. Road, Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20 further granting an absolute interest in favour of his wife Mrs.Catherine Sargunar, the first respondent in the O.P, subject to the clearance of the Indian Overseas Bank and other debts such as Court decree as they created charge on the property; that the testator has authorised and directed the petitioner as his executor to sell the property to any purchaser, who is willing to repay the above said debts on the property and pay the remaining amount of the sale proceeds to his wife Catherine. 3. 3. When the said O.P. is pending, the applicant in Application No.4266 of 1999 has filed the said petition praying to implead him as the party respondent to the said proceedings on averments such as that he was induced as a tenant to the said premises by one Geena Sargunar wife of the second respondent J.E.T. Sargunar in the main O.P. and daughter-in-law of the testator in the year 1991 and he is regularly depositing the rent of Rs.8,000 per month under Sec.8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act before the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.503 of 1992; that the deceased A.H. Sargunar when he was alive had executed a Will on 10.10.1975, which was delivered to this applicant by the said Geena Sargunar; that as per the said Will, the son J.E.T. Sargunar, adopted daughter Priya and the grand sons and daughters of A.H.Sargunar would get the right over the property, that the alleged second Will dated 10.2.1993 and to have been executed by A.H.Sargunar is to a genuine one and the same has not been executed by him voluntarily; that the legatee had played fraud in securing the document by obtaining the alleged signature of the testator while he was unconscious and in death bed; that the first Will dated 10.10.1975 alone is valid in law; that being the lawful tenant, this applicant is entitled to oppose the grant of probate further being entitled to lead evidence in Court to prove that the second Will is not a genuine one; that if the second Will is probated, he would not be entitled to deny the right of the legatee over the property and hence he is a necessary party, squarely falling under Sec.263 of the Indian Succession Act; that the second Will contains a false statement that this applicant was illegally inducted as a tenant and such a statement in the second Will has to be repudiated by him since he was inducted only as a lawful tenant and if he is not impleaded as a party respondent in the probate proceedings, he would not be in a position to repudiate the false allegations made against him and hence would pray for the relief extracted supra. 4. 4. This impleadment application is opposed by the petitioner in the main O.P. by filing a counter thereby denying all the allegations in the application and further submitting that this applicant has no locus standi to implead himself as a party in the Probate proceedings; that admittedly, the applicant is only a tenant and he cannot say whether the Will is true or not, while the kith and kin of the deceased remain absent; that the applicant is not having any interest in the estate of the deceased even supposing that the testator died intestate; that just because it has been stated in the Will by the testator that his son and his wife after driving the deceased and his wife Caterine out of his house illegally rented the house to the present applicant, the applicant cannot deny the right of the legatee over the property under Sec.263 of the Indian Succession Act and would pray to dismiss the above impleadment petition. 5. The petitioner in the main O.P. would file Application No.3843 of 2003 thereby denying all the averments of the impleadment petition and further submitting that assuming without admitting that the applicant in Application No.4266 of 1999 viz., Jayaveerapandian is a tenant, the said application filed by him is not maintainable since he has no caveatable interest in the property left by the deceased A.H. Sargunar; that even though the said application itself was not maintainable, this Court was pleased to order notices to the respondents; that the applicant has no knowledge about the whereabouts of the respondents viz., J.E.T.Sargunar and Mrs.Priya, but, he is deliberately giving one address or the other and under the guise of serving notices to them, he has dragged on the matter for four years; that the notices came back unserved and further time was sought for and granted by the Master and till now, the notices are not served on the respondents, which shows that the applicant has filed the application with ulterior motives and to prevent the petitioner in the main O.P. from pursing the O.P. effectively;. that in the meanwhile, the Indian Overseas Bank, Tiruvanmiyur Branch, where the above said property has been offered as collateral security is pressing for payment and because of the pendency of the above O.P. and since the petitioner in the main O.P. is in occupation of the property, he is not able to do anything effectively for probate of the Will; that this Court has also categorically held that in proceedings for probate, the Court is concerned with the question ‘whether the document put forward as the last Will and Testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether the testator had executed the same while in a sound disposing state of mind’, but however the applicant in the impleadment application is trying to drag on the proceedings, otherwise the petitioner in the main O.P. would suffer irreparable loss and hardship and when the application itself is not maintainable, no purpose would be served by keeping the same pending before the Court. On such averments, the petitioner in the main O.P. would pray to dismiss the impleadment application. 6. The applicant in the impleadment petition would file a counter thereby denying all the allegations of the petitioner in the main O.P. and further submitting that he was inducted as a tenant by Mrs. On such averments, the petitioner in the main O.P. would pray to dismiss the impleadment application. 6. The applicant in the impleadment petition would file a counter thereby denying all the allegations of the petitioner in the main O.P. and further submitting that he was inducted as a tenant by Mrs. Gina Sargunar in the year 1991 after receiving a sum of Rs.40,000 as advance on various dates; that the said Gina Sargunar was his neighbour and he had given money of more than Rs.1 lakh on various dates when the said Goina Sargunar was in financial problem and based on the financial help rendered by him, the said Goina Sargunar and her husband J.E.T. Sargunar have agreed to sell the property for Rs.15 lakhs on 3.1.1991 after receiving a sum of Rs.50,000 towards advance-cum-part of sale consideration and these facts were known to A.H. Sargunar; that in view of the said agreement to buy the property, this applicant had paid Corporation Tax etc., and to the Government authorities besides spending a sum of Rs.50,000 towards rain water harvesting by adopting the latest technology, which would show that he got right over the property; that he is in occupation of the property for more than 12 years without any interruption and incurred more than Rs.30 lakhs for repairing and renovating the property; that he is running a school in the property under the name and style of Venkateswara Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School which is a recognised one and pupil are studying upto XII standard; that he also running Montessori, Kinder Garden Teacher Training Centre and International Manpower Organisation in the said premises. 7. 7. The further submissions in the counter are that the deceased A.H.Sargunar had executed a Will on 10.10.1975 bequeathing the property in favour of his son J.E.T. Sargunar, his wife Flora Rajam Sargunar and his daughter Priyardshini, in which he had specifically states that his adopted daughter Priyadharshini is living with her husband T.D.Dawson at 6, BIM, RSAT, Sungei patani, Kedah Staste, Malaysia; that the testator had also given a share to his wife Floor Rajam Sargunar and the said Flora Rajam Sargunar, when alive was a practising Doctor and had left another Will dated 31.10.1975 appointing A.D’Souza, the well known senior counsel, as her executor and through that Will, the said Flora Rajam Sargunar had bequated her share in the suit property to her son J.E.T. sargunar and one third of her movable to her daughter Priyadharshini, which would show that all along during the lifetime of Albert Holmes Sargunar, they had love and affection to their son J.E.T. Sargunar, his wife Gina Sargunar and to their adopted daughter Priyadharshini and they have bequeathed their rights to the son and daughter and as such, the petitioner in the main O.P. has no right to call himself the Executor nor the Catherine Sargunar, the alleged second wife, to claim any right over the property; that the Will dated 10.2.1993, alleged to have been executed by A.H.Sargunar is not a genuine one and the same has not been executed by him voluntarily and the first Will dated 10.10.1975 alone is valid in law; that the execution of the second Will itself is doubted as it is not a registered Will, which creates a doubt about the genuineness of the Will; that in the present O.P., the alleged Executor, in connivance of the Caterine Sargunar, had purposely given the address of Priyadharshini as S8, M.G.Road, Sastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20 whereas now she is residing in Malaysia, which had been further proved by the second Will itself which contains the statement that Priyadharshini is in Malaysia; that in spite of specific direction by this Court, the executor had not taken steps to serve notice to Priya and J.E.T. Sargunar in the main O.P., but this applicant has taken notices to their addresses; that the executor had changed the counsel thrice and there was no representation before the Master on so many occasions which would show that he has not come to the Court with clean hands and he had suppressed the materials before this Court which cast a doubt that the alleged Will under probate is not a genuine one. 8. The applicant in the impleadment petition would further submit that he is meticulously following the Court order by depositing the sum of Rs.8,000 before the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.503 of 1992 and so far more than Rs.12 lakhs has been deposited by him and only to illegally withdraw the said amount and to grab the property, the Will dated 10.2.1993 is fabricated by Catherine Sargunar; that the petitioner has not followed the procedures to get the Will probated; that A.H.Sargunar when he was alive, had left a family arrangement dated 15.6.19876 between himself and his son J.E.T. Sargunar according to which, his son J.E.T.Sargunar became the absolute owner of the property and he had to repay the loans amounting to Rs.45 lakhs as on 15.6.1987 and a sum of Rs.1,500 should be given to Catherine Sargunar as her share which would show that at no point of time, A.H, Sargunar had an intention to give the property to Catherine Sargunar; that the Testator A.H. Sargunar left Will dated 10.10.1975 bequeathing the property under dispute in favour of his son J.E.T. Sargunar and his daughter Priya alias Priyadharshini; that he subsequently entered into a family arrangement on 15.6.1987 whereby he has given the property to his son J.E.T. Sargunar alone and thereby made him an absolute owner of the same; that thereafter the said J.E.T. Sargunar agreed to sell the property in favour of this applicant on 3.1.1991 after receiving a sum of Rs.50,000 as an advance which has been received by his wife Gina Sargunar and this petitioner is not merely a tenant in occupation of the property in dispute but as an agreement holder from the said J.E.T.Sargunar and therefore this applicant has got every right to agitate the matter before this Court. On such averments, the applicant in the impleadment petition would pray to implead him as a party respondent to the proceedings further dismissing the application No.3843 of 2003. 9. On such averments, the applicant in the impleadment petition would pray to implead him as a party respondent to the proceedings further dismissing the application No.3843 of 2003. 9. In the crisp arguments advanced on the part of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the third party petitioner praying to implead as a party to the original petition, besides tracing the facts and events in a chronological order, would lay stress on those points that the petitioner in Application No.4266 of 1999 got inducted into possession of the demised property in dispute as tenant by Mrs.Geena Sargunar, wife of J.E.T. Sargunar in 1991 on receipt of an advance amount of Rs.50,000, that herself and her husband agreed to sell the property on receipt of an amount of Rs.15 lakhs as part of sale consideration further entrusting all original documents with him; that he had also paid the corporation tax, wealth tax, water and sewage taxes etc. and spent a further sum of Rs.50,000 for harvesting the rain water; that he is depositing the rent of Rs.8,000 per month before the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.503 of 1992; that he had also renovated the property spending a large sum. 10. and spent a further sum of Rs.50,000 for harvesting the rain water; that he is depositing the rent of Rs.8,000 per month before the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.503 of 1992; that he had also renovated the property spending a large sum. 10. The further arguments of the learned senior counsel are the effect that the deceased Sargunar executed a Will dated 10.10.1975 bequeathing the property bearing No.S8, M.G. Road, Sastri Nagar, Chennai-20 in favour of his son J.E.T. Sargunar, his wife Flora Rajam Sargunar and daughter Priyadharshini; that his wife was a practising Doctor and she had left a Will dated 31.10.1975; that they both bequeathed their rights to their son and daughter and neither Catherine Sargunar nor anyone else could claim any right over the property; that the Will dated 10.3.1992 is not a genuine one and the said Will and testament is only that of 10.10.1975; that he was legally inducted into possession as a tenant; that so far more than Rs.12 lakhs has been deposited by him at the rate of Rs.8,000 per month as rent and to illegally withdraw the same, the Will dated 10.2.1993 has been fabricated; that the property is under mortgage of Indian Overseas Bank, which has obtained a decree and the matter is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai in T.A.No.130 of 1998 wherein he has filed an impleading petition; that on 15.6.1987, A.H.Sargunar left a family arrangement, according to which is son J.E.T.Sargunar became the absolute owner of the property. 11. On such facts extracted from the pleadings, the learned senior counsel would ultimately arrive at the legal aspect of the case concerned with his client and would exhort that it could be converted into one of suit in which event, anyone who can maintain a suit in respect of the property of the testator is a person having interest in the estate of the deceased and therefore such a person could object to the grant of probate and could enter as a caveator in the probate proceedings and would cite three judgments reported respectively in (1) Narayan Sah v. Sm.Devaki, A.I.R. 1978 Pat. 220; (2) Kalika Singh and another v. Awadhesh Narain Singh and others, A.I.R. 1983 Pat. 149; (3) Shanti Devi Agarwala v. Kusum Kumari Sarkar and another, A.I.R. 1972 Ori. 178. 220; (2) Kalika Singh and another v. Awadhesh Narain Singh and others, A.I.R. 1983 Pat. 149; (3) Shanti Devi Agarwala v. Kusum Kumari Sarkar and another, A.I.R. 1972 Ori. 178. In the first judgment cited above, it has been held: “Any interest, however slight and even a bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to enter caveat in a probate proceedings.” 12. In the second judgment cited above, it has been held: “A person who can maintain a suit in respect of the property of the testator is a person having interest in the estate of the deceased. Therefore, such a person can object to the grant of probate and can enter as a caveator in the probate proceeding. If such a person raises objection about the validity of the title of the testator to execute a Will, such challenge cannot be made in a probate proceeding. Such issue can be tried in a suit. But it does not mean that he will have no locus standi to object the proceeding. He will have the locus standi provided the challenges the genuineness of the Will on the grounds other than title. The probate Court would not decide the issue of title. The probate Court would also not decide as to whether the testator had any title to the suit property or not. The limited jurisdiction of the probate Court is to decide about the genuiness of the Will.” 13. In the third judgment cited above, there are two Wills and probate proceedings in respect of the first Will had been initiated and a part of property purchased from one of the legatees relying on the second Will, a learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court has held that, “the purchaser would be affected if probate is granted and as vendor/legatee is entitled to enter caveat, the purchaser having stepped into the shoes of the vendor, is also entitled to enter caveat.” 14. On such averments, the learned senior counsel would ultimately pray to allow the Application No.4266 of 1999 further dismissing the other Application No.3843 of 2003. 15. On such averments, the learned senior counsel would ultimately pray to allow the Application No.4266 of 1999 further dismissing the other Application No.3843 of 2003. 15. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent in Application No.4266 of 1999, who is the appellant in Application No.3843 of 2003 and the petitioner in the main O.P. would assert the execution of the Will dated 10.2.1993 by the testator A.H.Sargunar in favour of Mrs.Caterine Sargunar, his second wife, bequeathing the house mentioned supra disinheriting his son and daughter, the reason for which he has given in the Will further stating that his first wife and son illegally rented the house in favour of the applicant in Application No.4266 of 1999; that the executor appointed under the Will filed O.P.No.711 of 1997 praying permission to probate the Will dated 10.2.1993 in which the other petitioner came forward to pray for impleading himself as a party respondent on certain reasons assigned and on coming to know of the move made by the third party, this petitioner has filed the Application No.3843 of 2003 seeking to dismiss the impleading application. 16. Assessing the factual position of the case, the learned counsel would argue as it has been pointed out in his written statement filed in O.S.No.1177 of 1992. Mrs.Geena Sargunar admits that she is not the owner of the property though received a sum of Rs.45,000 to make arrangements, she only promises to get appropriate consent from the testator to execute a tenancy document; that she left for London on 20.12.1991 and at this juncture, the respondent/third party filed the said suit and obtained an order of interim injunction and then trespassed into the property unlawfully; that in effect, he has been a trespasser and in illegal occupation of the demised property from 20.12.1991 onwards and since Geena Sargunar was not able to appear for further hearings, the said suit was decreed ex parte and in the Rent Control Court also, he has filed an application as though he is a statutory tenant further depositing the rent of Rs.8,000 per month, though in illegal occupation; that he is earning more than Rs.50,000 per month from out of the building. 17. 17. The learned counsel would further argue that the question that is to be decided by this Court is whether the petitioner in Application No.4266 of 1999 should be impleaded in the O.P. or not and the learned counsel would point out the following reasons as to why he should not be impleaded at all: (a) Sec.283(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires that in probate proceedings, the Judge sitting in probate jurisdiction has to issue citation calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration. (b) He has no caveatable interest under Sec.283(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. (c) The meaning of the words" caveatable interest" are clearly explained in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1576. (d) In Rukumani devi v. Narendra Lal, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1866, it has been held that, "when interested persons failed to enter caveat, to contest the O.P. proceedings, it would preclude all others from contesting the validity of the Will. (e) In the instant case, the interested persons entitled to succeed the estate are the first, second and third respondents in O.P.No.711 of 1997 and respondents 2 to 4 in Application No.4266 of 1999. The first respondent entered appearance in O.P.No.711 of 1997. Since the respondents 2 and 3 in O.P., who are the respondents 3 and 4 in Application No.4266 of 1999 have alone failed to enter appearance, notices were sent and publications were effected as per the procedure provided under C.P.C., no other persons can either caveat. Applicant in Application No.4266 of 1999 is only a trespasser as found in the written statement filed in O.S.No.1177 of 1992 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. 18. Applicant in Application No.4266 of 1999 is only a trespasser as found in the written statement filed in O.S.No.1177 of 1992 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. 18. The learned counsel continuing to argue would point out that it is the admitted case of the applicant in Application No.4266 of 1999 that he had been inducted as a tenant by the third respondent’s wife viz., Geena Sargunar who has no right or title to the property as it has been admitted by herself in the written statement filed by her in O.S.No.1177 of 1992 whereas the testator alone is the owner of the property; that the applicant is a trespasser during her absence and played fraud in obtaining the order of injunction and therefore he cannot have a caveatable interest to maintain the present Application No.4266 of 1999; that this Court in an unreported order in O.P.No.615 of 1992 has held that “it is elementary that a person who entered a caveat, must necessarily show that he has an interest in the estate derived from the deceased by inheritance or otherwise;” that the Court has further held that “by mere citation, the applicant cannot be allowed to convert a probate proceedings into a suit for resolving the disputed title;” that the Division Bench of this Court, in the appeal against the said order, has held that, “the appellants claimed rival title over the property as against the testator and hence they cannot have any caveatable interest to seek for revocation of the grant” and dismissed the said appeal at the admission stage itself; that in a recent case reported in Valiammal v. Arumuga Gounder, (2001)1 M.L.J. 729: (2001)1 C.T.C. 708 , this Court has held that a stranger to a family cannot urge suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the Will; that in a Full Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in Smt.Severine D’Souza v. Felix Ambrose D’Souza, (2003)3 C.T.C. 449 (F.B.), it has been laid down, (a) that an interested person has to enter into caveat as defined in Lekh Raj v. Central Government, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 86 (b) the scope of probate proceedings is limited to the ruling in Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 280 and the probate Court does not decide any question of title or the existence of the property itself as has been held in Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh, (1993)2 S.C.C. 507 and thus the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court has overruled the Division Bench ruling of the same High Court in Maria Bai’s case in M.F.A.No.2858 of 1990, dated 25.5.1999. Citing the above rulings, the learned counsel would submit that the probate Court cannot entertain an application, which will ultimately lead to determine the question of title to the property and the competency of testator to execute the Will. 19. The learned counsel would further point out that in Narayan Sah v. Sm.Devaki, A.I.R. 1978 Pat. 220, cited by the applicant, only a person who got a benefit under the Will was allowed to enter into caveat to protect his rights under the Will in the probate proceedings, but in the instant case, the petitioner has no such interest under the Will, that Shanti Devi Agarwala v. Kusum Kumari Sarkar, A.I.R. 1972 Ori. 178 cited by the other side is also for the same proposition. 20. At the last phase of his arguments, the learned counsel would point out that the testator borrowed money from the Indian Overseas Bank, which has to be repaid by the legatee only after probate is completed and the bank is willing to accept the lesser amount than the actual claim, which is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, provided the O.P. is decided at the earliest, but the applicant has filed the present application only to drag on the proceedings and has wasted much of time in the process and hence would pray for an early order to serve the ends of justice. 21. 21. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what this Court is given to understand is that in a probate proceeding initiated in O.P.No.711 of 1997, the applicant in Application No.4266 of 1999, a third party to the O.P. proceedings on ground that he is a lawful tenant of the building regarding which the Will has been executed and the question of granting the probate has arisen, having been inducted into possession as a tenant by one Geena Sargunar, wife of the third respondent in the Application No.4266 of 199 and daughter-in-law of the testator, in the year 1991, and that he is depositing the rent by filing a R.C.O.P., before the Rent Controller and that he has got a vital interest in the probate proceeding since the Will contains a false statement that this applicant was illegally inducted as a tenant and therefore that it has become necessary on his part to repudiate the said averment in the Will. 22. The learned senior counsel for the applicant in Application No.4266 of 1999 would cite three judgments wherein it is held that any interest, however slight and even a bare possibility of an interest is sufficient to entitle a person to enter caveat in a probate proceedings and that a person who can maintain a suit in respect of the property of the testator is a person having interest in the estate of the deceased’ and when in the case of two Wills, a probate proceeding regarding the first Will was initiated and the purchaser of the property from the legatee of the second Will was trying to implead in the probate proceedings, the Orissa High Court has held that “since the purchaser would be affected if the probate is granted and as vendor, legatee is entitled to enter caveat, the purchaser having stepped into the shoes of the vendor is also entitled to enter caveat.” 23. But, on the contrary, the applicant in Application No.3843 of 2003, who is the first respondent in the impleadment application, would stiffly resist the case of the application in Application No.4266 of 1999 on the ground that under Sec.283(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the Court has to issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration’ and that “interest in the estate of the deceased” denoted in the section is nothing but “caveatable interest” and that the meaning of the “caveatable interest” is explained in the case reported in Mrs.Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1576,wherein it is held by the Honourable Apex Court that since neither the Will nor the sale deed has been produced before the Court by the caveator, the caveator cannot be said to have established his cavetable interest and therefore rejection of his request to implead was proper. It is further held in Rukumani devi v. Narendra Lal, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1866, that when interested persons failed to enter caveat to contest the O.P. proceedings, it would preclude all others from contesting the validity of the Will and in the instant case, the interested persons who could succeed the estate being respondents 2 and 3 in O.P.No.711 of 1997 who themselves failed to enter appearance, the applicant in Application No.4266 of 1999 having not been a party to the O.P. proceedings cannot enter caveat since he is not an interested person in any manner but only being a trespasser under pretext that he took possession as tenant of the property from the third respondent’s wife and she not being in any manner a beneficiary under the Will, basically she herself does not have any right either to let it out on lease nor could the applicant be termed to be in legal possession of the building in his capacity as the tenant in the real sense of the term and therefore the applicant cannot be impleaded as a party to the above probate proceedings. Regarding his claim that he is an intended purchaser having entered into an alleged agreement, the law is well settled that a mere agreement holder cannot claim any right over the property. 24. Regarding his claim that he is an intended purchaser having entered into an alleged agreement, the law is well settled that a mere agreement holder cannot claim any right over the property. 24. It would further be established in law and in legal propositions as held in many of the judgments of this Court that a person who enters a caveat must necessarily show that he has an interest in the estate derived from the deceased by inheritance or otherwise. The petitioner, who is yet to establish himself to be the lawful tenant of the building but admittedly has not taken possession as the tenant of the building from anyone of the legatees of the Will nor has he been inducted into possession by the deceased executor of the Will, has no basis to enter as caveator in the above O.P. proceedings to probate the Will. Therefore, it is only proper to brand him as a stranger to the family and he cannot even urge suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the Will as it has been decided in the case reported in Valiammal v. Arumuga Gounder, (2001)1 M.L.J. 729: (2001)1 C.T.C. 708 . Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that it is only fit and proper to dismiss the impleadment application filed in Application No.4266 of 1999 and to allow the other application in Application No.3848 of 2003 and hence the following order". In result, Application No.4266 of 1999 is dismissed and Application No.3843 of 2003 is allowed. No costs.