A testamentary suit where the original petitioner and subsequently her husband (legal representative) expired. The court held that the suit must be dismissed as abated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.52 OF 1998 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.143 OF 1998
Mangala S. Pendkay ...Plaintiff.
Vs.
Archana S. Deshpande ...Defendant.
None for the Plaintiff.
Mr.Kunal Bhanage for the Defendant.
CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 18th August, 2009.
P.C.-
on record as legal representative. Her husband also expired as per the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit abated due to the death of the original petitioner and her husband.
Whether the suit was dismissible in the circumstances.
Mangala S. Pendkay
Archana S. Deshpande
Anoop V. Mota
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
