Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the executors and is directed against the Order No.32 dated January 17, 2012 passed by the learned District Delegate, Sealdah in Probate Case No.50 of 2008. One Raghoram Shaw was the owner of some properties and he died on January 2, 2008 testate leaving behind heir only daughter, namely, Roshani Shaw. Raghoram Shaw executed a Will bequeathing his entire properties to the petitioners and the opposite party No.s 2 to 5. The opposite party No.1 is a tenant in respect of the premises in suit as described in the schedule to the plaint. Raghoram Shaw filed two ejectment suits being No.s 21 of 2004 and 22 of 2004 against the opposite party No.1 and one Krishna Lal Gupta, since deceased, for eviction. As executors, the petitioners filed a probate case for grant of probate of the Will executed by Raghoram Shaw before the learned District Delegate, Sealdah being the Probate Case No.50 of 2008. In that probate case, the opposite party No.1 filed a written objection against the grant of probate. Accordingly, by the impugned order, the learned District Delegate held that the matter has become contentious and as such, directed that the application for probate be returned to the executors for filing before the proper Court. Being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record, I find that the learned Trial Judge has committed irregularity in allowing the objector to contest the aforesaid probate proceeding. In a probate proceeding, the close relations or any other persons having interest in the property are the proper persons to make a probate proceeding contentious. In the instant case, the status of the objector is nothing but a tenant against whom the landlord preferred a suit for eviction. After the death of the original landlord, i.e., Raghoram Shaw, his heir, i.e., the daughter has been substituted and the said suit is being proceeded against him in accordance with law. The learned Trial Judge has made the proceeding as contentious on the ground that the objector has claimed that though he is a tenant, her husband was a close friend of Raghoram Shaw as well as the well-wisher of Raghoram Shaw. The learned Trial Judge has made the proceeding as contentious on the ground that the objector has claimed that though he is a tenant, her husband was a close friend of Raghoram Shaw as well as the well-wisher of Raghoram Shaw. She has also contended that they knew each other for about 40 years and the relationship of the objector with the deceased was as good as own sister and brother in between themselves. This, I hold, is not sufficient to conclude that the objector has interest in the suit property and that he is entitled to raise any objection in the probate proceeding. Mr. J. R. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has referred to the decision of Kartick Chandra Shaw v. Ranjita Pal & ors. reported in 1977(2) CLJ 137 and thus, he submits that even possibility of an interest does not apply to the possibility of a party filling a character that it would give him an interest. The said decision was relied on 36 CWN 635, a decision passed by the Division Bench holding the above contention. On the other hand, Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1 has referred to the decision of Jagjit Singh & ors. v. Pamela Manmohan Singh reported in (2010)5 Supreme Court Cases 157 and thus, he submits in order to decide whether the objector has any caveatable interest in the suit property has to be tested in view of the entire circumstances available in the probate proceeding matter. In the instant case, as per affidavit-in-opposition, the objector has filed one copy of the letter dated December 26, 2007 alleged to have been written by the deceased Raghoram Shaw to the petitioner and thus, he submits that the objector had acquired an interest in the said property. Mr. Mukherjee has also contended that the testator did not execute some papers on his own volition but he was compelled to do so at the instance of Sibshankar and Pankaj and as such, the objector has interest in the suit property. With due respect to Mr. Mukherjee, I am of the view that this paper does not create any interest in the suit property or that by this paper, it cannot be held that the objector is likely to get any property referred to in the probate proceeding. Mr. With due respect to Mr. Mukherjee, I am of the view that this paper does not create any interest in the suit property or that by this paper, it cannot be held that the objector is likely to get any property referred to in the probate proceeding. Mr. Mukherjee has also referred to the Paragraph No.s 3 and 4 of the Will copy of which has been annexed to the application as Annexure ‘A’ at page No.12. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that as per Paragraph No.s 3 and 4 of the said Will to the effect that the deceased had stated that he had adopted Sibshankar as his son from his childhood and as such, he gave him some of the properties mentioned in the Will and he had allotted only the ground floor flat of the dwelling house at Phoolbagan of a big house of G+3 storied building. Thus, the matter should be contested. It is up to the matter of the testator how he would dispose of the property and unless any person acquired any interest in the property mentioned in the probate proceeding, he cannot be allowed to contest. This being the position, the findings of the learned Trial Judge, I hold, suffer from material irregularity and so, the impugned order cannot be supported. This application succeeds and is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The learned Trial Judge is directed to proceed with the probate matter in accordance with law. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.