Allowed

Gurmit Singh Chadha v. Pure Drinks Ltd. (Respondent/Org.Caveator

Bombay HC1 Oct 2013NMT/223/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a caveat filed by a private limited company claiming to be the owner of a service quarter. The court held that the company was not a legal heir and could not raise issues regarding the authenticity of the Will, as it had no caveatable interest.

What did the court decide?

Caveat filed by the respondent dismissed and testamentary petition restored to its original position.

Gurmit Singh Chadha Vs Pure Drinks Ltd… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2013)

kvm

1/3

908-NMT223.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

T & I. J.

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 223 OF 2012

¶7

¶8

PETITION NO. 790 OF 2012

¶9

Ranjit Charles Singh ..... Deceased Gurmit Singh Chadha ..... Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Gurmit Singh Chadha ..... Petitioner

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Pure Drinks Ltd. ….. Respondent Org.Caveator

¶12

Mr.Atul Damle, a/w. Ms.Bina Hemang Jariwala, i/b. Auroma Law for the Petitioner.

¶13

Mr.Deepak Chitnis, i/b.M/s.Deepak Chitnis-Chiplunkar & Co. for the Caveator/Respondent.

¶14

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

¶15

DATED : 1^st OCTOBER, 2013

¶16

P.C.

¶17

By this Notice of Motion, petitioner/plaintiff seeks dismissal of the caveat filed by the respondent and to restore the petition to the file for petition for probate.

¶18

It is not in dispute that caveat has been filed by the limited company. Mr.Damle, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the affidavit in support of the caveat filed by the respondent herein and in particular

kvm

2/3

908-NMT223.12

paragraphs 5 to 21. It is submitted that in the affidavit in support of the caveat it is the case of the caveator that the said deceased was alloted the premise which is subject matter of this Will as a service quarter and she continued to occupy that illegally which premises belongs to the caveator. On perusal of the said paragraph, it is clear that the caveator has disputed the title of the deceased in respect of the said premises described in paragraph (11) of the Will. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the private limited company or a limited company is not the legal heirs under the provisions of Indian Succession Act and thus has no caveatable interest. It is submitted that in any event, the caveators have disputed the title of the deceased and has set up adverse title and thus cannot maintain caveat.

¶23

Mr.Chitnis, learned counsel on the other hand submits that the respondent caveator was a private limited company run by the member of family of the said deceased which was subsequently converted into a public limited company. It is submitted that other litigations are pending between the respondent company and the said deceased. It is submitted that respondent thus has caveatable interest and is entitled to maintain this caveat.

¶24

In my view, the respondent being not the legal heirs of the said deceased and/or next of kin, is not entitled to maintain caveat. Even if there was no probate, properties of the deceased would not have been inherited by the caveator on intestacy. On this ground alone, the caveat filed by the respondent deserves to be set aside.

¶25

On perusal of the affidavit in support of the caveat, it is also revealed that the respondent has set up title adverse to the title of the deceased and is not entitled to maintain caveat that on that ground also.

kvm

3/3

908-NMT223.12

Mr.Chitnis, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that on the face of the said Will propounded by the petitioner is false and fabricated. In my view, the third party who is not entitled to file caveat maintainable to maintain cannot raise issue about authenticity and execution of the Will.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the testamentary court cannot decide the title in respect of the property of the deceased or a third party.

¶31

Notice of Motion is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer (a). Caveat filed by the respondent is dismissed. Testamentary petition is restored to its original position.

¶32

Office is directed to proceed with the matter. No order as to costs. Drawn up order is dispensed with.

Gurmit Singh Chadha v. Pure Drinks Ltd. (Respondent/Org.Caveator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmit Singh Chadha v. Pure Drinks Ltd. (Respondent/Org.Caveator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashesh P. Goradia Vs Chintan Ashesh Goradia

Chandrahas Bomaiyya Rai Vs Shashikala Damodar Shetty (Caveator)

Bakhtawar Lentin and Ors. Vs Mrs.Lyla Daruis Jehangir

Henit Mahendrabhai Patel Vs Smita v. Mehta

Faizan Nizam Baig Vs Naseem Banoo Nizam Baig

Dhananjay Gopinath Dandekar Vs Ramesh Nagappa Naik and Anr.