9 Apart from the very principle of these provisions of law, there is ample authority for this proposition. In one of the early cases decided by Calcutta High Court on this issue, namely, the case of In the goods of Nanda Lal Sett1 , Calcutta High Court was concerned with an affidavit in support of a caveat, which did not disclose any material to show why probate should not be granted to the will in question. The ground of opposition to the probate, which was raised in the affidavit, was that the testator, Nandalal Sett, claimed the property through his deceased predecessor Prosanna Kumar Sett, who had created a trust of his properties for certain charities with power to the executrix to appoint a trustee. It was submitted that the executrix died without appointing any trustee. The objection of the caveator was that there being no other provision made for appointment of a trustee or trustees in accordance with the will of his predecessor Prosanna Kumar Seth, the testator Nandalal Sett had no power or authority, express or implied, to nominate or appoint or constitute any trustee or trustees. In other words, the objection of the caveator was that the testator Nandalal Sett, since deceased, had committed a breach of his predecessor Prosanna’s trust by appointing the trustee of the trust fund created by Prosanna’s will. In the face of such an objection, the court was of the view that the affidavit misconceived the scope and function of the affidavit in support of the caveat. The court noted that the grounds of objection in support of a caveat against probate of any will have to disclose material to show why probate should not be granted. In other words, an
