1
acd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 20 OF 2010
IN
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 40 OF 2004
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 67 OF 1998
Balan Alias Balendu Jayant Sawant ...Plaintiff
(Original Petitioner)
Versus
I.K. Agencies Pvt.Ltd. ig . ...Defendant
(Original Respondents.)
...
Mr. Pranav Sampat a/w Ms. Pushpa Thapa i/b Ms. I.M. Koparkar, for
the Petitioner in support of Notice of Motion.
Mr. Shailesh Shah a/w Ms. Saumya Srikrishna, and Mr. Vinod Solanki
i/b RKM Legal Services, for the Caveator.
....
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.
th
DATED : 19
March 2010
Oral Judgment:
1. By this Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff prays for dismissal of
the caveat dated 18.9.2004 filed by the Defendant.
2. The Plaintiff filed a Testamentary Petition (Test.Petn.No.67
of 1998 which has been renumbered as Testamentary Suit No.40 of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:44:17 :::
2
2004) for probate of the last Will and Testament dated 7.1.1998 of late
Chandrabai Nair who died on 13.5.1997. By the said Will Smt.
Chandrabai Nair (hereinafter referred to as ‘the testator’), inter alia,
disposed of two lots of shares viz. lot no.1 of 950 shares and lot no.2 of
2415 shares as also 80 debentures, all held in the company known as
“Indian National Press [Bombay] Ltd.”(hereinafter referred to as “INP
Ltd.”)
3. According to the Defendant the shares originally belonged
to Mr.Appat B. Nair, the husband of the testator, who during his lifetime
had sold the shares to the Defendant and therefore the testator was not
the owner and consequently had no right to bequeath the shares of INP
Ltd. by her Will dated 7.1.1998. The Defendant therefore filed a caveat
opposing for grant of probate. In view of the caveat, the Testamentary
Petition bearing No.67 of 1998 was converted into the Testamentary
Suit No.40 of 2004.
4. In the meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed another suit, bearing
suit no.170 of 2001, on the Original Side of this Court claiming
ownership of 3365 shares (comprising of two lots viz.lot no.1 of 950
shares and lot no.2 of 2415 shares) of INP Ltd. In the said suit, consent
terms were arrived at between the Plaintiff, the Defendant and some
other parties to the suit whereby the Plaintiff gave up the claim for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:44:18 :::
3
ownership of 3365 shares of INP Ltd. by receiving certain consideration.
It also appears that by the said consent terms the Plaintiff agreed to
delete the said shares in INP Ltd. from the list of assets of the deceased
testator covered under the Will dated 7.1.1998. I am, however,
informed at the Bar that the Plaintiff has taken out a Motion for setting
aside the consent terms and the same is still pending. In the meanwhile,
the Plaintiff has taken out the present Motion for dismissal of the caveat
dated 18.9.2004 filed by the Defendant/Respondent in the
Testamentary Suit.
5. Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Defendant submits that the present Motion is not maintainable in view
of the two interim orders passed by this Court on 11.12.2009 and
15.1.2010. Mr. Shah further submits that the caveat was filed in
September 2004 and the consent terms in Suit No.170 of 2001 were
signed and filed on 1.11.2004. Since the Plaintiff had signed and filed
the consent terms in second suit after the Defendant had filed the
caveat, the Plaintiff cannot object to the caveat filed by the Defendant
and cannot pray for its dismissal as by the consent terms he has given
up the claim of ownership of 3365 shares of INP Ltd.
6. It is settled principle in law that the Testamentary Court is
not required to go into the question of ownership or title to the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:44:18 :::
4
property which forms the subject matter of bequest under the Will. The
Testamentary Court is only required to see whether the deceased had
the capacity to make the Will and whether the Will has been made in
accordance with the provisions of law. Testamentary Court only
considers whether the Will is the last testamentary instrument of the
deceased, whether the deceased was in sound state of mind when he
made the Will and whether the Will was made in accordance with, law
that is to say whether it was properly executed and attested as per law.
The Testamentary Court is not required to see whether the deceased
was the owner of the property which he sought to bequeath under the
Will. The decision of the Testamentary Court granting the probate does
not confer any title to the property on the legatee if the deceased had
none. Issue of title, if raised, is required to be decided by the Court of
competent jurisdiction.
7. I, as a Testamentary Judge, am not concerned with the title
to 3365 share of INP Ltd. Indeed, I cannot decide upon the tittle to the
said shares. If valid settlement has taken place between parties in the
Suit No.170 of 2001, the parties would be governed by the consent
decree unless the consent decree/settlement is set aside by the Court of
competent jurisdiction.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:44:18 :::
5
8. The Defendant is a Private Limited Company incorporated
under the Companies Act. Admittedly, it is not an heir of the testator
Chandrabai Nair. It is not the case of the Defendant that the Will of
which Probate is sought is not the last Will and testamentary instrument
of the deceased or that she has bequested the said shares in INP Ltd. or
any other property whatsoever to it. The claim of hostile title which
the Defendant has set up to the shares of INP Ltd. which are the subject
matter of the Will, cannot be decided by the Testamentary Court. The
hostile claim would not give rise to a caveatable interest in the
Defendant. The Defendant does not have any cavetable interest in
opposing grant of Probate to the Will.
9. Rule 401 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules provides
for filing of a caveat. In my view, Rule 401 does not empower a person
who does not have any caveatable interest to file a caveat and to
oppose grant of probate. As stated hereinabove, the Defendant does not
have any caveatable interest in the property of the deceased. As such
the Defendant does not not have right to file the caveat. Irrespective of
any objection of the Plaintiff and irrespective of any concession made by
the Plaintiff that he would delete the shares of INP Ltd. from the list of
assets of the deceased the Court has to find out whether the Defendant
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:44:18 :::
6
has any caveatable interest. In the present case, as the Defendant has
no caveatable interest, his caveat has to be dismissed.
10. In view of the above, the Caveat dated 18.9.2004 filed by
the Defendant is dismissed.
11. The Notice of Motion is accordingly allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a).
(D.G. KARNIK,J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:44:18 :::