Allowed

Sunil Sureshchandra Khare. v. Smt. Mangala Vinayak Patwardhan.

Bombay HC27 Aug 2015TS/64/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a testamentary suit regarding letters of administration, the court decreed the case after finding the will sufficiently proved and the defendant had failed to appear or file evidence for months following multiple notices and directions.

What did the court decide?

Decree listing the Will as sufficiently proved; granting of Letters of Administration subject to office objections; discharge of Defendant's caveat.

Sunil Sureshchandra Khare. Vs Smt. Mangala Vinayak… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

12-TS64-05.DOC

¶2

Atul

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 64 OF 2005

¶4

IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 237 OF 2005

¶6

Sunil Sureshchandra Khare…Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Mangala Vinayak Patwardhan…Defendant

¶7

Mr. Kirit Mody, with Mr. Narayanswamy, i/b M/s. Shroff & Co., for
the Plaintiff.

¶8

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

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.The matter is listed today for hearing and final disposal. The
Petition is for Letters of Administration with Will annexed to the
property and credits of one Keshav Narayan Khare, who is said to
have died on 4th March 1994 leaving a Will dated 17th November
1989 in Marathi.

¶11

2.The Petition was originally brought by the grandson of the
deceased Testator, i.e., the deceased’s son’s son. A caveat was
entered by the deceased’s married daughter Mangala. She filed an

¶12

1 of 3

¶13

12-TS64-05.DOC

¶14

Affidavit in Support. The Will in question was attested by three
witnesses, one of whom, Gajanan, gave evidence. The original
Petitioner himself passed away and the original Petitioner’s brother,
one Satish Sureshchandra Khare, sister, one Anuya Arun Mhatre
and daughters Geetali Sunil Khare and Rachana Sunil Khare were
brought on record as Plaintiffs.

¶15

3.In view of the Caveat, Testamentary Petition was
renumbered as a Suit. Issues were framed on 21st January 2008.
Thereafter, documents were marked and the Plaintiffs’ led
evidence. They were then cross-examined by the Advocates
appointed by the Defendant.

¶16

4.On 27th January 2015 the matter was listed before me. Mr.
Mody for the Plaintiffs closed the Plaintiffs’ case. This was noted.
Neither the Defendant nor her Advocate were present in Court.
Nonetheless, directions were passed for the Defendant to file her
Affidavit of Evidence, compilation and Affidavit of documents on
or before 16th February 2015.

¶17

5.On 23rd March 2015, the matter was taken up again. I noted
that the Defendant and her Advocate were absent on the previous
occasion and that there had been no compliance with the directions
issued on 27th January 2015. The Defendant and her Advocate
were also absent on 23rd March 2015. This position remained
unchanged even on the next date, 31st March 2015. By now, having
given ample opportunity to the Defendant, I directed that the
Defendant’s case was deemed to be closed, since by the previous
order I hadf already put the Defendant to sufficient notice in that

¶18

2 of 3

¶19

12-TS64-05.DOC

¶20

behalf and further directed that the matter be set down for trial. On
24th April 2015, it was listed but did not reach. It is called out
today. Yet again none appears for the Defendant.

¶21

6.The Defendant had has more than sufficient opportunity to
lead her evidence, if any. For the last eight months neither the
Defendant nor her Advocate have attended this Court. All the
orders passed at least since January 2015 have been uploaded and
are available on the website. It seems that even on 2nd February
2012, when a Chamber Order was filed before the Prothonotary &
Senior Master none appeared for the Defendant.

¶22

7.This is a Petition of 2005. It has been pending for 10 years in
this Court already. It is not possible to delay this matter any further.
In view of the absence of the Defendant, the Defendant’s Caveat is
discharged.

¶23

8.The Suit is decreed, the Will having been sufficiently proved
by one of the three attesting witnesses. Letters of Administration to
be granted as sought subject to compliance with all office
objections.

¶24

9. Drawn up decree dispensed with.

¶25

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶26

3 of 3

Sunil Sureshchandra Khare. v. Smt. Mangala Vinayak Patwardhan.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Sureshchandra Khare. v. Smt. Mangala Vinayak Patwardhan.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bai Khatija Yusufi Basta-Wala and Anr. Vs Mrs. Fatimabai Abdeali Dohadwala and Ors.

Ms. Khairunissa Abdul Karim Shaikh Vs Nanasaheb Daulatrao Dubal and Sunanda Nanasaheb and 3 Ors. (Prop. Defendant)

Rajesh Darshanlal Bindra Vs Jasvinder C Singh and 2 Ors.

Pushpa @ Ansuya Laxman Pawar Vs Rukmini Laxman Pawar (Deceased)

Amberish S Dalal Vs Hansa Shantikumar Dalal and Another

Yadu Vansh Giri Son of Late Deodhari Giri Vs Yashwant Giri Son of Yadu Vansh Giri