Judgment 1. All the parties have been heard. They have filed counter affidavits, supplementary affidavits and rejoinders. With the consent of the parties this application is being disposed of. 2. The order dated 10.11.2004 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Katihar, is under challenge in the present proceedings. The said order arises from T.S. No. 1/2002 which is a proceeding converted from Probate Case No. 1/1998. 3. The dispute revolves around a purported Will executed by late Sardar Mouleshwar Prasad Singh (Ex. M.L.C.). It appears that Sardar Mouleshwar Prasad Singh died on 13.7.1996 leaving behind a Will dated 27.6.1996, which is the bone of the contention in the present proceedings. His wife Smt. Pritama Kaur filed the present probate case and in the said proceeding she disclosed the name of all the heirs. The probate proceedings proceeded. One of the sons Sardar Kartar Singh filed an objection in the said proceedings. The objection was in the shape of a caveat as contemplated under Sec. 284 of the Indian Succession Act. On such objection being filed, the probate case was converted into title suit. Thereafter it appears that the said son Sardar Kartar Singh compromised the matter. The proceedings then virtually came to an end whereby after fully hearing the parties the trial court fixed the date for orders. At this juncture a petition was filed by Sardar Balwant Singh Ramuwalia purporting to be the president of M.G.M. Medical College and Lions Seva Kendra Hospital, Kishanganj. In the said petition a prayer was made to recall the order posting the case for orders and permitted the petitioner to contest. The said application is Annexure 2. The said petition could be in terms to be called a caveat provided the conditions necessary for the same are satisfied. The petitioner contested the matter and contested the right of the said Sardar Balwant Singh Ramuwalia to intervene in this proceeding. The learned judge heard the matter and holding that as the Will touched upon the office of Managing Trustees of M.G.M. Medical College and Lions Seva Kendra Hospital, the petition was maintainable and granted permission to Sardar Balwant Singh Ramuwalia to intervene in the matter to challenge the validity of the Will. The learned judge heard the matter and holding that as the Will touched upon the office of Managing Trustees of M.G.M. Medical College and Lions Seva Kendra Hospital, the petition was maintainable and granted permission to Sardar Balwant Singh Ramuwalia to intervene in the matter to challenge the validity of the Will. I may here point out that the right to nominate as exercised by the Will was in relation to the M.G.M. Medical College and Lions Seva Kendra Hospital Trust and not the Medical College and the Hospital of which the applicant was the President. The question in controversy was with regard to the Managing Trustees. However, this distinction need not detain this court. As per Will, Sardar Mouleshwar Prasad Singh, who was one of the life trustees and the Managing Trustees of the M.G.M. Medical College Trust vide a registered trustee which by rectification included the Lions Seva Kendra Hospital Trust as well. In terms of Clause 14 of the Registered Trustees the Managing Trustees during their life time could name the successors to the Managing Trustee and on their failure to do so their heir/eldest son/widow shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees on such terms and conditions and the Managing Trustees or as the case may be the Board of Trustees deem fit. 4. By the said Will Sardar Mouleshwar Prasad Singh appointed his son Gurudayal Prasad Singh as the Managing Trustees and his wife as Life Trustees. The objection filed on behalf of Sardar Balwant Singh Ramuwalia was basically that the testator i.e. Late Sardar Mouleshwar Prasad Singh had no authority to make such a testamentory disposition. The right, as exercised by him, was wrong. A Will executed by him was forged. 5. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the court erred in entertaining such plea in a probate proceeding. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dvievdi, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the impugned order opposing this application submitted that Sardar Balwant Singh Ramuwalia being the President of the Trust had a right to file a caveat as he had interest in the estate of the deceased. He placed reliance on the judgments of this court in AIR 1947 Patna 434 (Mt. Sheopai Kuer vs. Ramakant Dikshit & Ors.) and AIR 1983 Patna 149 (Kalika Singh & Ors. vs. Awadhesh Nr. He placed reliance on the judgments of this court in AIR 1947 Patna 434 (Mt. Sheopai Kuer vs. Ramakant Dikshit & Ors.) and AIR 1983 Patna 149 (Kalika Singh & Ors. vs. Awadhesh Nr. Singh & Ors.) to submit that any person having remotest interest in the estate of the testator can be caveator in terms of Sec. 284 of the Indian Succession Act. 6. To the contrary Mr. J.S. Arora relied on the judgment of this court in AIR 1995 Patna 122 [: 1995(1) PLJR 814] (In Re: Late Rajo Singh Ramautar Singh alias Ganesh Shanker) which has taken note of both the aforesaid judgments. In my view, the only question in the present application is as to who is the person competent to file a caveat in terms of Section 284 of the Indian Succession Act. Firstly, it is well settled that probate proceedings are proceedings not certifying the validity and legality of the disposition made in the testamentary instrument. It is a proceeding only to certify genuineness and authenticity of the testamentary instrument. The validity and legality of disposition made therein has to be tested in separate proceeding. 7. The two decisions as relied by Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi go to show that in order to validly caveat a person must have interest in the estate of the testator. What is the interest in the estate of the testator to mean really is a question. To my mind this question is squarelly answered by AIR 1995 Patna 122 [: 1995(1) PLJR 814], a judgment which has considered the earlier judgments as well. 8. The true test is whether the Will would adversely affect the interest of a person, such a person would be said to be a person having interest in the estate of the deceased. In other words, but for the Will, a person would gain from the estate of the deceased such a person only could maintain a caveat. Stranger to the estate of the testator cannot be permitted to challenge the Will and join the proceeding. Here what is to be seen is whether Sardar Balwant Singh Ramuwalia, the President or Sardar Kartar Singh, the Secretary of the trust had any independent interest in the estate of Late Mauleshewar Prasad Singh. Stranger to the estate of the testator cannot be permitted to challenge the Will and join the proceeding. Here what is to be seen is whether Sardar Balwant Singh Ramuwalia, the President or Sardar Kartar Singh, the Secretary of the trust had any independent interest in the estate of Late Mauleshewar Prasad Singh. To my mind, a reference to the trust deed and the Will would clearly establish that they or their office of President/Secretary respectively was not effected in any manner. 9. Mr. Arora submits that Late Mauleshwar Prasad Singh was merely exercising the right, which he had, as per Clause 14 of the Trustees. He was not touching any other office but provided for succession of Managing Trustee and Life Trustee, which were posts not held by either Sardar Balwant Singh Ramuwalia or Sardar Kartar Singh. Their positions does not change with the Will. They are not in any manner effected by the Will. 10. Mr. Arora further submits with reference to the application filed by the said intervenor would show that they are there to challenge the authority to make the Will. This in his submission is not permissible. 11. Mr. Dvivedi further submitted that Sardar Kartar Singh though son of Late Mauleshwar Prasad Singh had filed his objection (caveat) as a Secretary of the trust. To this, my reply is that he was already a party to the proceedings being son of the testator. He had a right to object. It appears that the court treated the objection as objection by the son of the testator and thus converted the proceeding into title suit. To my mind, this would not operate as res judicata against any person in the proceedings. 12. Having heard the arguments and considered the matter. I am of the view, firstly, that a person to seek the challenge validity of the Will simplicitor cannot be held to be made a party to the proceeding as a caveator. This is so because probate proceedings is only a proceeding to certifying the genuineness of execution of the Will but not as to the legality of the contents thereof. A Will can validly be probated but when it is relied on for any testatmentory succession the same can be declared invalid for want of authority or other reasons. 13. This is so because probate proceedings is only a proceeding to certifying the genuineness of execution of the Will but not as to the legality of the contents thereof. A Will can validly be probated but when it is relied on for any testatmentory succession the same can be declared invalid for want of authority or other reasons. 13. This aspect has to be kept in mind and as such mere challenge to the validity of the Will will not give locus to a person to became a caveator. What is important is the person must have interest in the estate of the testator. The true test to my mind is in AIR 1995 Patna 122. Applying the said test it would be seen that the Will does not operate adverse to the interest of the President or the Secretary of the Trust in any manner. The Will does not touch upon their right to administer the trust at all. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Will affects them adversely, much less, as a President or a Secretary of the Trust. 14. In that view of the matter, they cannot be held to be persons having interest in the estate of the testator. If that be so then they are not competent to lodge caveat in terms of Sec. 284 of the Indian Succession Act and the trial court had erred and committed a clear error of jurisdiction in entertaining their application. 15. This revision application is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.11.2004 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Katihar arises from T.S. No. 1/ 02 is set aside.