IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.998 of 2009 Anita Verma, wife of Shri Ajay Kumar Verma, resident of village Taralaki, P.s. Bisonpur, District Darbhanga. …Intervener- Petitioner versus 1. Lelawati Devi, wife of Jai Karan Lal, resident of Kanhaimal Ward No.10 of the Hajipur, Municipality, P.S. Hajipur Town, District Vaishali. ….Plaintiff- Opposite Party 2. Jawahar Lal, son of late Ramchandra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Kanhaimal Hajipur Municipality, P.S. Hajipur, District Vaishali. …Defendant no.1-Opp. Party 3. Jai Karan Lal, son of late Ramchandra Prasad, resident of Mohalla Kanhaimal Hajipur Municipality, P.S. Hajipur, District Vaishali. …Defendant no.1-Opp. Party ----------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Kanak Verma and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocates. For the Opp. Parties : None. --------- 02/ 20.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the intervener-petitioner challenging order dated 26.05.2009, by which the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali rejected her petition under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( hereinafter referred to as `the Code for the sake of brevity) for being arrayed as one of the defendants in Probate Case No. 06 of 1994. 3. The aforesaid probate case was filed in the year 1994 by opposite party no.1 with respect to a Will dated 12.10.1992 executed in her favour by Ram Bahadur Prasad with respect to the land in question. Before filing of the said probate case, Ram Bahadur Prasad had died and hence both his sons, namely, Jawahar Lal and Jai Karan Lal were impleaded in the probate case as defendants no.1 and 2 (opposite parties no.2 and 3). 4. However, much later on 04.04.2009 the intervener-petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code for being arrayed as 2 one of the defendants in the said probate case on the basis of two registered deeds of sale dated 03.02.1995 executed by Jawahar Lal in favour of the intervener with respect to certain portions of the land involved in the case. 5. The learned court below after hearing both parties and also after considering the provisions of law came to the conclusion that it was a probate proceeding , in which it has only to be seen as to whether the executant had executed the Will in favour of the legatee. It was also found by the learned court below that in a probate case, the court cannot look into the question of title and hence the intervener-petitioner, who herself claims to have purchased the property in question from one of the defendants during the pendency of the probate case, was neither a necessary party nor a proper party. In this regard, the learned court below has rightly relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sunil Gupta vrs. Kiran Girhotra and others reported in A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 140, in which it has been held that only those, who came through or under the Will or deny or dispute the execution thereof, can be deemed to be the necessary party or the proper party. This being not the case of the intervener-petitioner, the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting his petition. 6. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed . MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )