JUDGMENT : B. Veerappa, J. The petitioners filed P and SC No.37/2018 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kolar, under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate certificate on the Will dated 27.07.2018 executed by deceased B.M. Chandregowda, in respect of item Nos. 1 to 4 and for direction to the fifth respondent to transfer all the accounts mentioned in item No.2 of the WILL into the name of the first petitioner and also for a direction to the sixth respondent to transfer the individual license of the deceased vide license No.CBS/C1/CIVIL/3839/2015 valid from 01.06.2015 till 31.05.2020 in the name of the first petitioner. I. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. It is the case of the petitioners that, late B.M. Chandregowda, during his lifetime, executed a Will dated 27.07.2018 nominating the first petitioner as legatee for various contracts and the bank accounts for the purpose of certain other properties. In the year 2018, petitioner approached the respondents along with the WILL in order to enable them to continue with various works, about 19 in numbers, the respondents had insisted that the Will has to be proved to recognize the contractor for continuing with the execution of the works. As such, petitioners preferred P & SC No.37/2018 before the District Court under the provisions of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate certificate. The Trial Court, considering the objections raised, by the impugned order dated 22.02.2019, directed to register P & SC No.37/2018 as original suit and directed the respondents to take recourse to amend their respective objection statements as written statement. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for. II. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Ms. Siri Rajashekar, learned counsel for Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court treating the P & SC petition as plaint and further directing to treat the petition as suit and to treat the objections as written statement is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. 4. Ms. Siri Rajashekar, learned counsel for Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court treating the P & SC petition as plaint and further directing to treat the petition as suit and to treat the objections as written statement is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. Learned counsel further contended that the respondents/ defendants entered appearance and only stated that they were not aware of the existence of the Will but subject to the proof of the Will, they have nothing to say in the matter. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 specifically stated that it was they who have insisted for the probating of the Will for the purpose of entrusting continuance of the works which were enlisted as Annexure-A to the probate. Therefore, factually, there was no dispute regarding the execution of the Will. 5. Learned counsel further contended that unless and until a person having interest in the estate of the deceased, objects to the grant of succession certificate and such person can be said to have a caveatable interest, no objections could be raised regarding the probate of the Will in a proceedings under Section 276 within the meaning of Sections 283, 284, 295 of the Indian Succession Act. She would further contend that the respondents have no manner of any caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased, but it is their specific stand that it is at their instance that there is a requirement of obtaining probate for permitting the petitioners to continue the work, could not have been considered subjecting as even otherwise they could not have objected for grant of probate. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, Sri D.R. Anandeeswar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 6 submits that the averments made in the petition has been admitted as true and correct. After death of B.M. Chandregowda, petitioner No.1 has approached respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the Will and act accordingly. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 demanded probate and Will from the competent Court of law. 7. Sri A. Ganesh, counsel for respondent No.5 submits that execution of Will is not within the knowledge of respondent No.5. It is for the petitioner to obtain probate as contemplated, in accordance with law. III. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 8. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 demanded probate and Will from the competent Court of law. 7. Sri A. Ganesh, counsel for respondent No.5 submits that execution of Will is not within the knowledge of respondent No.5. It is for the petitioner to obtain probate as contemplated, in accordance with law. III. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration is: (i) Whether the respondents in the Trial court have made out any 'caveatable interest' in the estate of the deceased? (ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Trial Court treating the petition as suit and objections as written statement is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case? IV. CONSIDERATION 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record carefully. 10. It is undisputed fact that deceased Chandregowda, during his lifetime, had executed a Will dated 27.07.2018, nominating the first petitioner as legatee of various contracts and bank accounts and for other purposes of certain properties. The executant died on 11.09.2018 and therefore, petitioners filed application before the District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, in P & SC No.37/2018 for grant of probate certificate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act. 11. The Trial Court, considering the application and objections, has proceeded to pass the impugned order holding that, a perusal of objections filed by the respondents makes it clear that the respondents calling upon the petitioners to prove the contentions raised in the main petition. Under the circumstances, at any rate the petition is said to be contested by the respondent Nos.1 to 6 though nobody appeared and contested the petition after issuance of citation through paper publication. Under the circumstances, at this stage, the instant petition attracts the provisions of Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, wherein the instant petition is said to be contentious case. Accordingly, proceeded to pass the impugned Order. 12. The material on record clearly depicts that on the basis of the Will executed by deceased Chandregowda, petitioners filed a petition for entrustment of continuation of work. Accordingly, proceeded to pass the impugned Order. 12. The material on record clearly depicts that on the basis of the Will executed by deceased Chandregowda, petitioners filed a petition for entrustment of continuation of work. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 insisted for probating the Will and for the purpose of entrusting continuation of work and therefore, petitioners approached the Court under the provisions of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate certificate. The respondents, except insisting the petitioners to produce the probate certificate, they have not disputed the execution of the Will. Until and unless a person having interest in the estate of the deceased, objects to grant of succession certificate and such person can be said to have a 'caveatable interest', no objections could be raised regarding the probate of the Will in a proceedings under Section 276 within the meaning of Sections 283, 284, 295 of Indian Succession Act. When the law is well settled and the respondents in no manner are having any caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased, but it is their specific stand that it is at their instance that there is a requirement of obtaining probate for permitting continuance of the work, that could not have been considered subjecting as even otherwise they have no caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased. 13. The provisions of Section 284 of the Indian Succession Act reads as under : 284. Caveats against grant of probate or administration: (1) Caveats against the grant of probate or administration may be lodged with the District Judge or a District Delegate. (2) Immediately on any caveat being lodged with any District Delegate, he shall send a copy thereof to the District Judge. (3) Immediately on a caveat being entered with the District Judge, a copy thereof shall be given to the District Delegate, if any, within whose jurisdiction it is alleged, the deceased had a fixed place of abode at the time of his death, and to any other Judge or District Delegate to whom it may appear to the District Judge, expedient to transmit the same. (4) Form of caveat- The caveat shall be made as nearly as circumstances admit in the form set forth in Schedule V. 14. (4) Form of caveat- The caveat shall be made as nearly as circumstances admit in the form set forth in Schedule V. 14. A plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that the Caveats against the grant of probate or administration may be lodged with the District Judge or a District Delegate. On lodging of the caveat with any District Delegate, immediately, he shall send a copy thereof to the District Judge. Immediately on a caveat being entered with the District Judge, a copy thereof shall be given to the District Delegate, if any, within whose jurisdiction it is alleged, the deceased had a fixed place of abode at the time of his death, and to any other Judge or District Delegate to whom it may appear to the District Judge, expedient to transmit the same. The caveat shall be made as nearly as circumstances admit in the form set forth in Schedule V. 15. The grant of probate in no way decides any question of title of the deceased to the properties bequeathed, in the Will. Grant of Probate, similarly, in no way affects the claim for an independent title to such, a property by anyone else. The bequeath under the Will, no doubt, would displace the normal succession prescribed by law, in case the deceased dies without leaving a Will. Therefore, it has been recognized all along that anyone who stands to gain by the absence or the invalidation of the Will, is entitled to oppose the grant of probate; in this regard, even a remote heir or a distant possible successor to the estate is recognized, as a person interested in the estate of the deceased and hence competent to oppose the grant of probate. 16. There is no doubt, that any person claiming to have an interest 'in the estate' of the deceased may lodge the caveat, because, normally, such a person is entitled to be issued with the citation, under Section 283(1)(c). But, a claim to an interest in the estate of the deceased, contemplates, a claim which is not adverse to the interest of the deceased; that can only be an interest claimed either because of the deceased or because of the eclipse caused by the deceased during his or her lifetime. 17. But, a claim to an interest in the estate of the deceased, contemplates, a claim which is not adverse to the interest of the deceased; that can only be an interest claimed either because of the deceased or because of the eclipse caused by the deceased during his or her lifetime. 17. The "caveatable interest" means the benefit conferred by Will sought to be probated to third party who is otherwise not an heir according to intestate succession does not confer any right upon such third party to lodge a caveat in the matter, so the caveator should claim interest in estate of deceased otherwise than by way of Will sought to be probated. 18. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and all other powers thereunto enabling, the High Court of Karnataka made and promulgated the Rules Governing Probates and Administration Matters, 1964, to govern the procedure for the grant of Probate and Letters of Administration in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. 19. Rule 8 and Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Probates and Administration Matters, 1964, read as under : 8. Particulars in caveat- The caveat shall be in the form prescribed by Schedule V of the Act, it shall also state the full and true address of the caveator for service on him. 9. Notice of caveat- When a caveat against the grant of probate or Letters of Administration is filed, the Court shall cause notice thereof to be given to thee petitioner as in Form No.5 and the petition shall thereupon be amended by inserting the name of the caveator as a defendant. 20. A plain reading of the said Rules makes it clear that, the caveat shall be in the form prescribed by Schedule V of the Act, it shall also state the full and true address of the caveator for service on him. When a caveat against the grant of probate or Letters of Administration is filed, the Court shall cause notice thereof to be given to the petitioner as in Form No.5 and the petition shall thereupon be amended by inserting the name of the caveator as a defendant. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Saroj Agarwalla (dead) LR. Abhishek Agrawalla vs. Yasheel Jain, (2017) 1 KCCR 531, at paragraphs 8 and 9, held as under : 8. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Saroj Agarwalla (dead) LR. Abhishek Agrawalla vs. Yasheel Jain, (2017) 1 KCCR 531, at paragraphs 8 and 9, held as under : 8. A careful reading of Rules 28 and 30 makes it abundantly clear that before the proceedings are numbered as a suit by orders of a Judge for being tried as a suit as per provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), the Court may take up as a preliminary issue, whether the caveator has a caveatable interest, if such an application is filed before the Court by the petitioner. Clearly the preliminary issues are triable before the proceedings are treated as a full-fledged suit under order of the Judge concerned. Whereas suit is required to be tried as per provisions of the Code, the procedure for trial of preliminary issue has been left to the discretion of the court. Rule 30 does not require the court to come out with specific findings in respect of preliminary issue because the language used in Rule 30 requires the court to discharge the caveat where, upon trial of such issue, "it appears that the caveator has no interest ........" (Emphasis supplied). The preliminary issue does not relate to the validity or legality of the Will sought to be probated but only to the issue whether the caveator has an interest for which he can maintain the caveat. 9. Learned counsel for both the parties have addressed us at some length as to the meaning of the words "caveatable interest". The matter is no longer res integra in view of a detailed discussion of this term in the case of Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, (2008) 4 SCC 300 . Paragraphs 59 to 86 of this judgment refer to large number of authorities of this Court as well as various High Courts. The conclusions flowing from that judgment including the proposition of law in paragraph 86 clearly support the case of the respondents in both the appeals that they have a caveatable interest. The test which may be applied in the present case is : Does the claim of grant of probate prejudice the respondent's right because it defeats some other line of succession in terms whereof the respondent as a caveator asserted his/her right? The test which may be applied in the present case is : Does the claim of grant of probate prejudice the respondent's right because it defeats some other line of succession in terms whereof the respondent as a caveator asserted his/her right? Since the answer, in the facts of the case would be in the affirmative, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench that respondents have a caveatable interest. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pasupati Nath Das (dead) vs. Chanchal Kumar Das (dead) by LRs and Ors., 2018 SCCOnline(SC) 1647, at paragraph 13, held as under: 13. We must, at the outset, say that the scope of the matter arising from Probate proceedings is very limited. The scope of the matter is primarily and principally regarding the genuineness of the execution of the testament or Will. This part has been succinctly dealt with in a decision rendered by this Court in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha and Others, (2008) 4 SCC 300 . Paragraphs 57, 66 and 67 of the said decision spell out the scope of the enquiry in Probate proceedings as under : "57. The 1925 Act in this case has nothing to do with the law of inheritance or succession which is otherwise governed by statutory laws or the custom, as the case may be. It makes detailed provisions as to how and in what manner an application for grant of probate is to be filed, considered and granted or refused. Rights and obligations of the parties as also the executors and administrators appointed by the court are laid down therein. Removal of the existing executors and administrators and appointment of subsequent executors are within the exclusive domain of the court. The jurisdiction of the Probate Court is limited being confined only to consider the genuineness of the will. A question of title arising under the Act cannot be gone into the (sic probate) proceedings. Construction of a will relating to the right, title and interest of any other person is beyond the domain of the Probate Court. (Emphasis by us) 66. We may, however, at the outset, notice a decision of this Court in Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera, (1990) 3 SCC 333 which is binding on us. Therein, the testatrix viz. (Emphasis by us) 66. We may, however, at the outset, notice a decision of this Court in Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera, (1990) 3 SCC 333 which is binding on us. Therein, the testatrix viz. one Mary Aline Browne, was the wife of one Herbet Evander Browne, the eldest son of John Browne. Mary died on 28-3-1972. She had executed a will on 12-3-1962. An application for grant of a letter of administration with a copy of the will annexed was filed by Michel. Petitioner Elizabeth Antony and her husband Zoe Enid Browne filed caveats on the plea that the said will was a forged document. The petitioner therein also claimed that her daughter Browne had executed a will on 23-6-1975 and she had executed a deed of gift in favour of the petitioner. She also claimed herself to be a trustee of John Browne Trust. The Probate Court held that they had no caveatable interest. Caveatable interest, therefore, was claimed as an executor and legatee of the will executed by Zoe Enid Browne as also a deed of gift in respect of one item of the estate executed in their favour. Caveatable interest was also claimed on the premise that the petitioner was appointed a trustee of John Browne Trust. This Court noticed a large number of High Court judgments. It was, however, opined that the petitioner therein failed to establish a caveatable interest stating: (SCC p.336, para 6) "6. We have perused the entire order of the trial court in the context. Admittedly neither the original nor a copy of the will said to have been executed by Zoe Enid Browne, was filed. Now coming to the trust, it is in the evidence of PW 1 that John Browne Trust has come to an end in March 1972 and the same was not in existence. The trial court has considered both the documentary and oral evidence in this regard and has rightly held that the petitioner has no existing benefit from the trust. Likewise the registered gift deed or a copy of it has not been filed. Before the learned Single Judge of the High Court also same contentions were put forward. The trial court has considered both the documentary and oral evidence in this regard and has rightly held that the petitioner has no existing benefit from the trust. Likewise the registered gift deed or a copy of it has not been filed. Before the learned Single Judge of the High Court also same contentions were put forward. The learned Judge observed that from the objections filed by the caveator she desires the court in the probate proceedings to uphold her title on the strength of a gift deed and the trust deed. It is observed: 'Equally, the petitioner has not placed before the court the will dated 23-6-1975 stated to have been executed by Zoe Enid Browne to establish that under the will dated 12-3-1962 stated to have been executed by Mary Aline Browne some interest given to the petitioner under the will dated 23-6-1975 of Zoe Enid Browne, is liable to be in any manner affected or otherwise displaced, by the grant of letters of administration in respect of the will dated 12-3-1962 stated to have been executed by Mary Aline Browne.' Accordingly, the learned Judge held that the petitioner has not established that she has a caveatable interest justifying her opposition to the probate proceedings for grant of letters of administration. In this state of affairs, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the petitioner has caveatable interest." This Court, thus, categorically opined that while granting a probate, the court would not decide any dispute with regard to title. A separate suit would be maintainable therefor. If probate is granted, they have a remedy in terms of Section 263 of the 1925 Act also. 67. In the recent judgment of Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon v. Hardyal Singh Dhillon, (2007) 11 SCC 357 this Court inter alia relying upon Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh, (1993) 2 SCC 507 and upon referring to a catena of decisions of the High Court and this Court, held that the Probate Court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself." (Emphasis by us) VI. CONCLUSION 23. CONCLUSION 23. For the reasons stated above, the points raised in the writ petition has to be answered in the negative holding that the respondents have not made out any 'caveatable interest' in the estate of the deceased and the trial Court is not justified in treating the petition as suit and objections as written statement, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 24. In view of the aforesaid reasons and the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned Order passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.02.2019 passed in P & SC No.37/2018 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, is hereby quashed. 25. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court to proceed with the case on the merits of the petition and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Both the parties submit that the Trial Court may be directed to expedite the disposal of the petition itself, since petitioners are aspiring for government contracts. The said submission is placed on record. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the petition and pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to cooperation of the parties to the lis.