Dismissed

Moti Menghraj Gehi v. Asha Menghraj Gehi and Others

Bombay HC7 Sept 2010MPT/50/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed petitions for revocation of probate filed by legal heirs. The court held that the original party had accepted the settlement and settlement, which was binding on his heirs. Allegations of duress and mental disorder were rejected due to laches and acquiescence.

What did the court decide?

All petitions for revocation of probate were not accepted; accompanying summonses disposed of.

Moti Menghraj Gehi Vs Asha Menghraj Gehi and Others — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

MP-50-51-52-53

¶2

¶3

PGK

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

Miscellaneous Petition No.50 of 2010 IN

¶6

Probate Petition No.575 of 1985

¶7

Moti Menghaj Gehi....Petitioner
v/s.
Asha Menghaj Gehi & ors.....Respondents

¶8

A N D

¶9

Miscellaneous Petition No.51 of 2010 IN

¶10

Probate Petition No.575 of 1985

¶11

Suresh Menghaj Gehi....Petitioner
v/s.
Asha Menghaj Gehi & ors.....Respondents

¶12

A N D

¶13

Miscellaneous Petition No.52 of 2010

¶14

IN

¶15

Probate Petition No.575 of 1985

¶16

2 MP-50-51-52-53

¶17

Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal....Petitioners
@ Chander Kumar Gehi & ors.
v/s.
Asha Menghaj Gehi & ors.....Respondents

¶18

A N D

¶19

Miscellaneous Petition No.53 of 2010

¶20

IN

¶21

Probate Petition No.575 of 1985

¶22

Renu Chandra Mehta....Petitioner
v/s.
Asha Menghaj Gehi & ors.....Respondents

¶23

Mr.Charanjeet Singh Chandrapal in person in MP No.52 of
2010 and as an Advocate with Mr.Shiva Patil i/by Mr.M.M.
Borkar in MP Nos.50 of 2010, 51 of 2010 & 53 of 2010 for
Petitioners.

¶24

Mr.Vineet Malhotra in MP No.51 of 2010 and MP No.53 of 2010
i/by M/s.S.J. Khera & Sucharita Patra for Respondents.

¶25

Mr.T.K. Cooper in MP No.52 of 2010 i/by M/s.S.J. Khera &
Sucharita Patra for Respondents.

¶26

Mr.Gaurav Joshi in MP No.50 of 2010 i/by M/s.S.J. Khera &
Sucharita Patra for Respondents.

¶27

MP-50-51-52-53

¶28

¶29

CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.

¶30

DATED :7th September, 2010

¶31

P.C.:

¶32

1.The above petitions are filed by the three children and one grandson of the testator, whose Will has been probated, for revocation of the probate. The testator died on 18^th February 1985. He had married two wives, Hiribai and Asha. He had four children through his wife Hiribai being Renu, Kishan, Moti and Suresh (the Petitioners herein). He had two children through his wife Asha being Anil and Naresh (the Respondents herein). Kishan�s son, Charanjeet, who is the Petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No.52 of 2010, is the grandson of the testator. Kishan has expired and his estate has been represented by his son Charanjeet, the testator�s grandson.

¶33

2.Kishan had filed a Civil Suit being Civil Suit No.2865 of 1985 in this Court for administration of the estate of his father on the ground that he had died intestate against his step mother and step brothers. He settled the suit under a detailed Consent Terms executed on 29^th June 1993. His sisters and brothers Renu (Sushila), Suresh and Moti were also party Defendants.

¶34

3.Kishan, the Plaintiff in the suit, settled his disputes

¶35

4 MP-50-51-52-53

¶36

with his step mother and step brothers on 23rd June
1993. The parties entered into the Consent Terms under
which Kishan accepted the consideration and settled all
the disputes.

¶37

4.Suresh was Defendant No.5 in the suit who also signed those Consent Terms. Kishan as well as Suresh were present in Court before Justice M.S. Rane (as he then was) on 23^rd June 1993 when the Consent Terms were taken on record and order in terms thereof came to be passed.

¶38

5.Moti, the brother of Kishan, who was Defendant No.6 in that suit, did not sign the Consent Terms on that day. He signed the Consent Terms on 29^th June 1993 under which he also relinquished his rights and surrendered his claim for consideration separately paid to him.

¶39

6.Renu, the daughter of the deceased, is stated to have been represented by his Power of Attorney as she was not present in India. She herself has relied upon her passport showing that she was in Dubai and had returned to India only in 1995.

¶40

7.It is further contended that another suit being Suit No.1001 of 1987 was filed by the second wife of the testator and her two children against the other family

¶41

5 MP-50-51-52-53

¶42

members being the younger brother of the testator, the
sister of the testator as also the children of his
first wife being Kishan, Suresh, Renu and Moti. That
suit also came to be settled under the Consent Terms
signed by and between the second wife of the testator
and her children on the one hand and Moti on the other.
Under these Consent Terms, Moti and Charanjeet
transferred and conveyed his right, title and interest
in the estate of the deceased for consideration.

¶43

8.It is contended by Renu, Moti, Suresh and Charanjeet,
the son of the deceased Kishan, who are the four
Petitioners in the above four Petitions, that the Will
is forged. This contention was taken up by them inter
alia in the Affidavit-in-support of the Caveat filed in
Probate Petition No.575 of 1985 also. They have
contended that the deceased was bedridden and could not
have executed the Will sought to be probated, the Will
was unnatural, the estate was ancestral, the Will was
not genuine, the attesting witnesses were unknown to
the deceased, etc.

¶44

9.It may be understood that the aforesaid suit was
initially filed by Kishan in which his other brothers
and sisters were parties, in 1985. The Probate Petition
was also filed in 1985. The probate was granted on 17th
June 1994 after the parties had settled the

¶45

6 MP-50-51-52-53

¶46

Administration Suit No.2865 of 1985. Thereafter Moti
further settled Suit No.1001 of 1987 on 30th March
2000.

¶47

10.Upon the aforesaid settlement in the suit and the
consequent grant of probate in the Probate Petition,
the Respondents commenced administration of the estate
of the deceased. Kishan expired on 23rd November 2008.
All the children accepted the settlement during their
lifetimes. Charanjeet, son of Kishan, the Petitioner in
Miscellaneous Petition No.52 of 2010, who is the main
protagonist of the challenge to the grant, filed the
above Petition for revocation of the probate only on
7th April 2010.

¶48

11.It is rightly contended on behalf of the Respondents by Mr.Cooper that Kishan�s son stepped into the shoes of Kishan and would be entitled to challenge the only what Kishan could have challenged. The settlement by Kishan would otherwise enure for the benefit of as well as be binding upon all his heirs, assignees, executors and legal representatives, including his son Charanjeet.

¶49

12.Though Kishan never challenged the Consent Terms
executed since 1993 and the probate granted in 1994
during his lifetime, his son, Charanjee, has alleged

¶50

7 MP-50-51-52-53

¶51

that he had signed the Consent Terms under duress
exercised upon him by Dawood Ibrahim�s gang members and
that Kishan had suffered depression and suicidal
tendencies and hence did not challenge the grant. No
duress practised upon Suresh, Moti or Renu and no
depression suffered by them is shown.

¶52

13.To challenge the Consent Terms on the ground of duress
by avoiding the Consent Terms the suit was required to
be filed by Kishan, Moti, Suresh and Renu at least
within three years of the Consent Terms having been
filed in absence of challenging the Consent Terms under
Order XXIII Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure
within 30 days of its filing. (See Sardarni Ramindar

¶53

Sarup Singh vs. Govind Singh, IA 6903/96 in CS (OS)

¶54

3403/91 decided on 7.5.2010 Manu/DE/0985/2510.). It may
be mentioned that even if Kishan suffered from any
mental disorder or depression or suicidal tenancies,
which is sought to be shown only by a copy of Doctor�s
certificate, the others are not shown to have suffered
from any such mental disorder and could have sued to
set aside the settlement in the aforesaid suits, which
they, in fact, did not.

¶55

14.For whatever reasons that he did not challenge the grant, he accepted the settlement brought about and hence the contract of settlement, voidable that it was,

¶56

8 MP-50-51-52-53

¶57

was not avoided and stood confirmed. The contract
contained in the Consent Terms could have been avoided
only by Kishan and if it is not avoided by Kishan, it
would be binding upon his heirs and legal
representatives.

¶58

15.It is contended on behalf of Renu that she was not
served the citation. The Advocate for the Respondents
in Petition No.53 of 2010 filed by Renu has shown the
citation served upon her Constituted Attorney in India.
Renu was admittedly settled in Dubai then as reflected
from her own passport.

¶59

16.Charanjeet has sought to produce the several documents
purportedly to show the signature of his deceased�s
grandfather to contend that the signature on the Will
was a forgery. Those documents containing the
signatures are neither proved documents nor admitted
documents. The grant cannot be revoked unless those
documents stand proved. Further, the grant cannot be
revoked unless the Consent Terms, which are voidable at
the option of the parties who have signed the Consent
Terms, seek to avoid the Consent Terms and obtain an
order, upon whatever evidence that they might lead in
the Civil Court showing the execution of the Consent
Terms under duress or coercion. Until that is done and
the Consent Terms are set aside, the probate granted,

¶60

9 MP-50-51-52-53

¶61

pursuant to the challenge to the Petition being
withdrawn by the settlement between the parties, cannot
be revoked.

¶62

17.It may be mentioned that despite strenuous arguments about duress practised upon Kishan, the father of Charanjeet, no prima facie material also in that regard is produced. It is argued that a criminal complaint has been filed. The charge-sheet therein has been filed on 21^st August 2010, the copy of which is not produced. The other Petitioners have not filed any such criminal complaint also. It is stated that they are witnesses in that complaint.

¶63

18.It is contended by Charanjeet that the Advocate R.K. Medha, in whose office the Will was executed, has given the statement to the Police that he does not know anything of the Will. The Advocate has not signed below the Will and is not an attesting witness. He, therefore, may legitimately not know what may have transpired in his office.

¶64

19.Charanjeet has sought to create certain evidence of the whereabouts of the attesting witness as well as the Advocate in the office of Mr.R.K. Medha, who had signed the Will of the deceased as Advocate. He has relied upon certain courier slips stapled to certain letters

¶65

10 MP-50-51-52-53

¶66

addressed to the parties which are all returned by the
Postal Authorities. He claims that address of the
Advocate is shown to be fictitious, one attesting
witness is not shown to be residing in the chawl which
was shown as his address and the other attesting
witness has expired and hence all the packets have been
returned by the courier. This would be natural and
expected in case of parties whose addresses were
mentioned in the Will executed on 14th November 1984.
The attesting witnesses as well as the Advocate, who
may be witnesses in case of grant of probate, would
also not be available as such length of time. It is
precisely to meet those contingencies that the Law of
Limitation requires parties to sue or challenge within
the period of limitation.

¶67

20.It is seen that Charanjeet, who is the main contesting
Petitioner and who has argued on his own behalf as well
as on behalf of other Petitioners, has sought to
challenge the probate despite the settlement made by
his father 16 years after the settlement and 15 years
after the grant of the probate in the Will executed 26
years before.

¶68

21.Absolutely none of the tall claims is at all
substantiated. The seminal aspect is the settlement has
remained unchallenged and consequently, binding upon

¶69

MP-50-51-52-53

¶70

¶71

the parties and their heirs.

¶72

22.In the case of Shravan Goba Mahajan vs. Kashiram

¶73

Deveji, AIR 1927 Bombay 384, the question of setting
aside an agreement on the ground that fraud, undue
influence and misrepresentation by the heirs of the
deceased came to be considered. After relying on a
number of judgments cited by both the parties, it was
held thus:-

¶74

�But we think it clear that, as regards modern
English law, an action for damages for fraud or
a suit in equity to set aside documents on the
ground of undue influence and so on can
undoubtedly be brought by the representatives of
the party injured, where you find that there is
a direct injury to the estate of the deceased.

¶75

The suit to set aside an agreement by legal representative
of the deceased, who was stated to have been defrauded, was
held maintainable upon a rider placed by Patkar, J. by
distinguishing the case of Mahmad Allibhai vs. Udesingi,
(1917)First Appeal No.254 of 1915 (D.B.) and the case
Govind Ramaj vs. Savitri, I.L.R. (1918) 43 Bombay 173 which
were held not maintainable �on account of laches and
acquiescence from disputing the transaction because the
persons who were parties to the document had acted upon it
for a long time.�

¶76

MP-50-51-52-53

¶77

¶78

23.Following these judgments, in the case of Mt. Manbhari
vs. Pt. Sri Ram, AIR 1936 Allahabad 672 also it was

¶79

held that contracts entered into on the deathbeds of
the person under undue influence could be avoided under
Sections 19 and 19-A of the Indian Contract Act
�unless at the date of his death he has lost such
rights by acquiescence or otherwise.

¶80

24.It would be an abuse of the process if at such
distance of time settlements entered into by the
parties are allowed to be challenged upon a mere say
that the settlement was under duress or the parties
suffered from mental depression or disorder at the time
the settlement was entered into.

¶81

25.Hence all the Petitions for revocation are not accepted.

¶82

26.In view of the non-acceptance of the Petitions, all the Chamber Summonses taken out therein are disposed of accordingly.

¶83

( SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

Moti Menghraj Gehi v. Asha Menghraj Gehi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moti Menghraj Gehi v. Asha Menghraj Gehi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sister M. Herlinde Vs Mr. Michael Lopez

Arvind Sitaram Iyer - C.A. of Harindra Sitaram Iyer. Vs Udyavara Raghvendra Acharya.

Arvind Sitaram Iyer Vs U.R. Acharya and Anr. and Union of India

Yogesh @ Yogi Nanik Motwane and Anr. Vs Girdhar Nanik Motwane

Mrs. Quarobina Santan Barretto Vs Ms. Tereza Gonsalves

Hoshang Pesi Hodiwalla Vs 1. Bonny Dehramshah Bhathena and Ors.