BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent appeal is at the instance of a propounder in the proceedings for grant of probate and is directed against the order dated April 26, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge by which his Lordship dismissed an application for discharge of caveat filed by the present appellant. ( 2 ) THE appellant before us as an executrix filed an application for grant of probate of the alleged last Will and Testament of one Jagdish Prasad tulshal. In the said proceeding, the respondent before us, claiming to be the second wife of the testator, lodged a caveat. The appellant before us subsequently filed an application for discharge of the said caveat on the ground that the respondent was never married to the testator and as such, she had no caveatable interest in the matter. ( 3 ) IN the application for caveat, it was specifically mentioned that the respondent was marred to the testator on 28th February, 1986. ( 4 ) THERE is, however, no dispute that in the body of the alleged Will, the testator made some provision for payment of money to the respondent during her lifetime and admitted that he purchased immoveable property at barasat for her enjoyment but she was described as her maidservant. ( 5 ) THE learned Trial Judge by the order impugned herein has refused to discharge the caveat filed by the respondent on the ground that as by the will Itself some benefit had been conferred upon the respondent, she had attained caveatable interest in the matter. The learned Single Judge further held that Chapter 35 Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules provided for citation in case any benefit is conferred upon a person by virtue of the alleged Will. ( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the propounder has come up with the present appeal. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record although we do not approve the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge, in our view, the conclusion that the caveat should not be discharged was correct. ( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the propounder has come up with the present appeal. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record although we do not approve the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge, in our view, the conclusion that the caveat should not be discharged was correct. In our View, the mere fact, that by the Will sought to be probated the testator had given some benefit to a third party who is otherwise not an heir according to the intestate succession, does not confer any right upon such a third party to lodge a caveat in the matter, unless he claims interest in the estate of the deceased otherwise than by way of the Will sought to be probated. (See Rahamtullah sahib v. Rama Rau and another reported in LLR 17 Mad 373 However, in the case before us, the respondent has claimed to be the widow of the testator and from the statements of the Will itself, it appears that the testator made provisions for monthly allowance during her lifetime in appreciation of her service and also admitted to have purchased immovable properties for her enjoyment. He, however, has specifically denied any relationship other than that of master and maidservant which indicates that he was conscious that after his death his relation with Malati might be questioned. We cannot, at the same time, lose sight of the fact that a person by merely making a wrong statement in the Will cannot avoid one's real relationship with other, if at all existed ; thus, at least, an arguable case in favour of the claim of the respondent as regards the alleged relation between the testator and the respondent having been established, we are of the view that the caveatrix should be permitted to contest the probate proceeding. Whether the respondent is really a Jawful widow of the testator or not cannot be conclusively adjudicated in this proceeding but at any rate, prima facie materials have been placed which will justify the dismissal of the application for discharge of the caveat filed by Malati. After ail, a judgement in the prodate proceedings being a judgement in rem, a person-establishing prima facie interest in the estate of the testator should be permitted to contest the olaim and the conclusive proof of such interest is not necessary. After ail, a judgement in the prodate proceedings being a judgement in rem, a person-establishing prima facie interest in the estate of the testator should be permitted to contest the olaim and the conclusive proof of such interest is not necessary. ( 8 ) CHAPTER 35 Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules, relied upon by the learned Single Judge, however, does not create any right in favour of a mere legatee to have a citation if but for the Will in question he has no interest in the estate of the testator. The sard provision is quoted below : "on an application for letters of administration, unless otherwise ordered, a citation shall issue to all persons having a right to take the grant prior or equal to that of the applicant, unless such persons have signified their consent to the application. " ( 9 ) ON a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the said provision has no application to the proceedings for grant of a probate at the instance of the sole executor named in the Will ( 10 ) WE, therefore, find no substance in this appeal, although we do not approve the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge. ( 11 ) WE make it clear that our observations are all tentative for the purpose of this appeal and such observations will not be binding upon either of the parties or upon any other Court if the status of the respondent is questioned in any proceedings. ( 12 ) WITH the above observations, this appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. .