Dismissed

Hansel Vasantray Vadodaria and Anr. v. Mayank Vasantray Vadodaria

Bombay HC15 Dec 2016APP/406/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed an appeal against a Single Judge order revoking a grant of probate and restoring a legitimate caveat. While the caveat lacked a supporting affidavit, the court found the respondent's explanation for the delay sufficient, upholding the Single Judge's discretion to grant the respondent a second chance to contest the will.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Hansel Vasantray Vadodaria and Anr. Vs Mayank… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

dssherla

5-app-406-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL NO. 406 OF 2016 IN

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 69 OF 2015

¶8

Hansel Vasantray Vadodaria and anr. .. Appellants. V/s. Mayank Vasantray Vadodaria .. Respondent.

¶9

Mr. Varun Dixit a/w. Mr. Abhishek Bhadang for the Appellants. Mr. Niket Mehta and Mr. Rabindra Hazari for the Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 15 DECEMBER 2016.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1] The appellants appeal the order dated 22 March 2016, by which, learned Single Judge has revoked the probate granted without contest by a departmental order dated 12 March 2015 and granted the respondent herein an opportunity to contest the Will, in pursuance of the caveat instituted by the respondent within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶13

2] Mr. Varun Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the caveat filed by the respondent was not supported by affidavit as is required under the rules. In such circumstance, the department was justifying in making the order dated 12 March 2015 granting the probate as applied for by the appellants, without contest. He further submits that the cause shown by the respondent for not filing the affidavit in support of the caveat within the prescribed period of

¶14

1 of 3

¶15

dssherla 2 5-app-406-16

¶16

limitation does not constitute a sufficient cause. For this reason, Mr. Dixit submits that there was no warrant to revoke probate and afford the respondent any further opportunity to contest the Will.

¶17

3] Mr. Niket Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the caveat had been instituted within the prescribed period of limitation and there was sufficient cause for not filing the affidavit-inreply in support thereof. Upon consideration of such cause, learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion in the matter and there is no unreasonableness involved in the exercise of such discretion. He pointed out that the respondent has also agreed to pay the costs as quantified without any demur.

¶18

4] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are satisfied that there is no cause to interfere with the exercise of discretion by learned Single Judge.

¶19

5] Admittedly, the respondent has a caveatable interest since, the Will in question was propounded by his father. The material on record also indicates that the respondent is settled overseas and had engaged an advocate to file the caveat and to take steps to pursue the same. The petition filed by the respondent also states that his advocate was indisposed on 23 January 2015 and therefore, had no knowledge that the matter was listed before the Registry on the said date. In such circumstances, we agree with learned Single Judge that the cause shown was sufficient and that this was not a case to deny the respondent an opportunity to contest the Will, specially considering the fact that the caveat had been lodged within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay in filing affidavit in support of the caveat stands

2 of 3

dssherla

5-app-406-16

sufficiently explained. There is no question of any unreasonableness in the exercise of discretion. The appellants have even been compensated by way of costs of Rs.25,000/-.

¶25

6] For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this appeal. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶26

( CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶27

(M.S.SONAK, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

Hansel Vasantray Vadodaria and Anr. v. Mayank Vasantray Vadodaria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hansel Vasantray Vadodaria and Anr. v. Mayank Vasantray Vadodaria

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

Redi Port Limited and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anuradha Parkash Kapur Wife of Prakash Kapur and Anr. Vs Bawa Randhir Singh Bhalla and 27 Ors.

Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association Mumbai Vs Union of India and Ors.

Zubedabai S. Suratwala and 2 Ors. Vs Mohammedali M. Sali and 6 Ors.

Shahnawaz Y. Rais and Anr. Vs Adil Bhure and Anr.

Gol Offshore Ltd. Vs M/S.United Macro Engineering