MEENAKSHI BHAI Vs. KARUNAKARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from an interlocutory order passed by the District Judge of Trivandrum in a proceeding to revoke a probate granted by that Court. The order appealed from reads: Post for evidence. It by implication repelled two preliminary objections raised by the grantees of the probate; one that the forum to revoke the grant was the High Court and not the District Court and the other that the petitioner had neither locus standi nor made out just cause for revocation. It is unfortunate that the learned Judge did not state his reasons for overruling the preliminary objections, but instead passed the laconic order quoted above.

(2.) A preliminary point was raised before us that no appeal lies from an interlocutory order like the one before us now. The appellant himself originally filed this as a revision petition but afterwards got it converted into an appeal. Nevertheless the preliminary point is of substance and we accept it.

(3.) It will be creating an intolerable situation to hold that every order passed by a probate court is subject to an appeal. We are not unaware that a contrary view has been taken by the Chief Court of Oudh but the better view that commends itself to us is that adopted by the Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts that it is only a final order or an order by which there is an adjudication of the rights of the parties that can form the subject of an appeal. See AIR 1932 All. 379 (380, 381) and AIR 1929 Cal. 733 (734). Other cases bearing on the point can be found collected on pp. 402 and 403 of B.B. Mitras Commentaries on the Indian Succession Act (Sixth Edition, 1950).