Facts: The Testator, Rajeshwari Nagarkar, executed a Will in 2005 bequeathing properties in Satara to her son-in-law (the Applicant) and her children. After her death in 2008, probate was granted by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune, in 2011. Subsequently, the Respondents (the Testator’s brother and nephew) filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) for revocation of the probate under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. They contended that the Testator had no title to the properties because their common ancestor, Radhabai, had allegedly revoked a previous Will in favor of the Testator and executed a subsequent Will in favor of the Respondents. The Applicant challenged the maintainability of this revocation petition, arguing that a challenge to the Testator’s title does not constitute a "caveatable interest".Procedural Posture: The Trial Court twice rejected the Applicant’s objection, holding the revocation application to be maintainable by relying on the "slight interest" theory. The Applicant approached the Bombay High Court invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to challenge the order dated 20 December 2022.Issue: Whether a person questioning the title of the testator or the capacity of the testator to dispose of property (on grounds outside the law of succession) possesses a "caveatable interest" sufficient to maintain an application for revocation of probate.Holding: No, the revocation application is not maintainable. A person challenging the Testator's title is a "stranger" to the probate proceedings.Reasoning: The Court reconciled two seemingly conflicting Supreme Court decisions: Krishna Kumar Birla (2008), which held that a caveator must show an interest in the estate that would be prejudiced by the probate (e.g., a different line of succession), and G. Gopal (2008), which suggested "slight interest" is enough. Following the principle in A.P. Electrical Equipment Corpn. (2025), the Court held that probate proceedings are confined to the genuineness of the Will. Since the Respondents claimed they were the real owners and did not claim to inherit through the Testator, they were not prejudiced by the probate in terms of succession. A challenge to the Testator's title is a matter for a substantive civil suit, not a Probate Court. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, probate for Wills executed outside presidency towns is optional but not prohibited; thus, the grant of probate was not without jurisdiction.