Allowed

Chitra Baijal Nee Chitra Srivastava. v. Kishore Kumar Harprasad Srivastava.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2009TS/6/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari disposed of a testamentary suit for Letters of Administration. By consent terms where the respondent surrendered all rights, the caveat was dismissed as withdrawn and the grant was allowed to the petitioner as an uncontested proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Caveat was dismissed as withdrawn; Letters of Administration issued to the petitioner as per the notified resettlement terms.

Chitra Baijal Nee Chitra Srivastava. Vs Kishore… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

USJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶4

TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.6 OF 2006 IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.1151 OF 1999

¶6

Chitra Baijal nee Chitra Srivastava .. Petitioner/

¶7

 Plaintiff

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Kishore Kumar Harprasad Srivastava .. Respondent /
 Defendant

¶10

Mr. G.W. Mattos for the petitioner
Dr. Mrs. R.R. Ajinkya for the defendant

¶11

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2009.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1.In a petition, which is filed for issuance of Letters

¶14

of Administration with the last Will and Testament of the

¶15

deceased, the petitioner plaintiff and respondent defendant

¶16

state that there is over all settlement which has been

¶17

arrived at with regard to the properties and assets of the
deceased and the shares of the respective parties therein.

¶18

2.The terms have been reduced to writing and in the

¶19

light of these terms which are acceptable to both, the
petitioner plaintiff and respondent defendant that the
defendant has instructed his advocate to withdraw the

¶20

: 2 :

¶21

caveat filed to oppose the grant.

¶22

3. Both sides have understood the implication and

¶23

consequences flowing from these terms, especially when the
respondent has given up his right, title and interest in
the assets and properties of the deceased. In his
presence, the terms are tendered. They are duly signed by
him. Having gone through the terms and both being familiar
with English language, it is stated that they have no
claims in the light of the stipulations in the consent
terms.

¶24

4. In the light of the above, the consent terms are taken

¶25

on record and marked as �X� for identification. At the

¶26

request of the defendant, the caveat is dismissed as
withdrawn. In the light of the caveat being withdrawn, the

¶27

registry to process the petition as an uncontested
proceeding and issue the grant in favour of the petitioner

¶28

to which respondent defendant consents and has no
objection. The order is passed in the presence of the
constituted attorney of the plaintiff and the defendants.

¶29

(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Chitra Baijal Nee Chitra Srivastava. v. Kishore Kumar Harprasad Srivastava.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chitra Baijal Nee Chitra Srivastava. v. Kishore Kumar Harprasad Srivastava.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suknibai Mishrimal Jain. Vs Smt. Kamalabai Bhawarlal Chauhan through her C.A. Mr. Kiran B. Chauhan.

Mahesg Mithalal Trivedi Vs Madhavi Alias Madhaviben Dhirajlal Sagr

Tilaknagar Industries Ltd. Vs Deejay Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Polaris Const.Ltd. Vs Rocktine Const.

Orient Press Limited. Vs R.N.Paper and Boards Ltd.

Benaaz Merzi Bomanji and Merzi Bomi Bomanji Vs .....................