Irani v Limji Kaikashree Panday1 to say that even a caveator cannot
dispute the testator’s title. This decision is actually against the
Petitioner. The facts in that case were clearly distinguishable. The
caveator there was not related to the deceased testator.2 He did not
even claim to be related to the testator. The learned single Judge
observed that the caveator “has no interest in the estate to be
derived from the deceased in inheritance”. What the caveator
effectively said therefore was that since he, the caveator, had title to
certain property, he was entitled to oppose the grant of probate to
the will that purported to deal with that very property. The learned
single Judge held that in such a case, where the caveator had no
caveatable interest, and since probate proceedings did not decide
questions of title, the caveat could not be maintained. I am in most
respectful agreement with that view. The learned single Judge in
Eruch Irani did not hold that even where the caveator claims to be
related to the deceased and, on that basis, to have a caveatable
interest, he can never allege that certain properties did not belong
to the testator. Indeed, a caveator with a caveatable interest can do
so; and he can do so to show, inter alia, that the will propounded is
vitiated by undue influence, coercion or for want of fitness of mind.
He cannot expect an adjudication of title in such proceedings, but
that is all.
