Allowed

Nilesh R. Patkar v. Prakash B. Raikar

Bombay HC27 Jan 2015CST/3/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay allowed an amendment to an affidavit supporting a caveat in a testamentary suit, holding it was merely clarificatory and caused no prejudice. Consequently, an additional issue was framed to determine if the will was unnatural.

What did the court decide?

Affidavit in support of caveat permitted to be amended; Additional Issue No. 2A framed asking whether defendants prove the will is unnatural.

Nilesh R. Patkar Vs Prakash B. Raikar — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

42-CST3-15.DOC

¶2

Agk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 3 OF 2015

¶4

IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 32 OF 1994

¶6

IN

¶7

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 402 OF 1993

¶8

Mr. Prakash Raikar...Applicant
In the matter between
Nilesh R. Patkar…Plaintiff
Versus
Prakash B. Raikar…Defendant

¶9

Mr. A.G. Toraskar, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar, with Mr. Sachin Parmar, i/b M/s.
Warerkar & Warerkar, for the Applicant / Defendant.

¶10

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:27th January 2015

¶11

PC:-

¶12

Affidavit in reply dated 23rd January 2015 is taken on record.

¶13

The Chamber Summons seeks an amendment of the affidavit in Support of the Caveat. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

42-CST3-15.DOC

¶16

the Applicant / Caveator, correctly points out that the substance of
the Affidavit in Support already indicates that one of the defences
or grounds of opposition by the Defendant is that the Will in
question is unnatural, in that it completely excludes the Defendant,
his wife and his daughters although all of them were residing with
the Testator till the time of his death and, further, relations between
the Defendant and Defendant’s family on the one hand and the
Testator were not just cordial but were very close indeed. It is in
this context that the Defendant has in paragraph 12 of the Affidavit
in Support stated that it was impossible that the Testator would not
know his married daughter’s correct name. The essence of this is,
clearly, that the Will is unnatural in excluding the Caveator and his
family.

¶17

It is true that this is a very old Suit of 1994 and that the trial has progressed. I do not see, however, what possible prejudice would be caused to the Plaintiff if the amendment is allowed. The amendment sought is purely clarificatory. It amplifies and sets out in specific terms that which is necessarily implicit in the Affidavit in Support of the Caveat. Indeed, it is of possible assistance to the Plaintiff to have a greater degree of exactitude in the pleadings.

¶18

In light of this, the Affidavit in Support of the Caveat is permitted to be amended in terms of the schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons. Amendment to be carried out within one week from today. Given the fact that the substance of the amendment is set out in the schedule to the Chamber Summons, it is not necessary to re-serve a copy of the Affidavit in Support of the

¶19

2 of 3

¶20

42-CST3-15.DOC

¶21

Caveat. It is sufficient if a copy of the amendment is sent to the
Advocate for the Plaintiff. Reverification is dispensed with.

¶22

In view of the amendment permitted, Additional Issue No. 2A is cast as follows:

¶23

“2A.Whether the Defendants prove that the Will in
question is an unnatural Will?

¶24

Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff is justified in his submission that both parties will be at liberty to lead further or additional evidence on this issue.

¶25

The Chamber Summons is disposed of in these terms.

¶26

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶27

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

Nilesh R. Patkar v. Prakash B. Raikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh R. Patkar v. Prakash B. Raikar

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

Andal Swamy Vs Satyanarayan Muniswamy

Satish L. Palan Vs Laxmibai Purushottam Palan and Ors.

Kishore Kisanswaroop Agarwal Vs Radhavallabh Kisanswaroop Agarwal

Dr. Carole Moraes Vs Mitchelle Crasto and Anr.

Gokuldas Pilar Nayak Vs Prakash Ramratan Gupta through C.A. Rajendra Anandrao Yadav

Vinay Gangadhar Agarwal Vs Geeta Gangadhar Agarwal (Deceased) and Mr. Ashokkumar Murarilal Agarwal (Repspondent)