Dismissed

Rahul Ravi Kapur v. Rajendra Pal Kapoor

Bombay HC13 Oct 2016APP/636/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging an order that denied the appellant caveatable interest in his grandmother's estate because his father, the deceased's son, was alive. The Court declined to decide on alleged dispossession, directing the appellant to file civil proceedings for that relief.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; liberty to institute civil proceedings granted; notice of motion disposed of.

Rahul Ravi Kapur Vs Rajendra Pal Kapoor — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

skc

9-APPL-246-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL (L) NO. 246 OF 2016 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 6 OF 2016 IN

¶7

CAVEAT NO. 295 OF 2015 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION (L) NO. 1800 OF 2015 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2007 OF 2016 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 246 OF 2016

¶8

Rahul Ravi Kapur .. Appellant versus Rajendra Pal Kapoor .. Respondent

¶9

Ms Shaistha Pathan i/b. M/s. Y & A Legal for Appellant. Mr. Nirman Sharma i/b. M/s. Deven Dwarkadas & Partners for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C. J. AND M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2] This appeal challenges order dated 10 June 2016 made by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant has no caveatable interest to the estate of late Mrs. Nirmal Ramlal Kapur.

¶14

3] Admittedly, the appellant claims to be the grandson of the deceased. There is no dispute that the appellant's father i.e. the

1 of 2

2 9-APPL-246-16

skc

deceased's son is still alive. In such circumstances, we cannot fault the impugned order, which has taken the view that the appellant will have no caveatable interest in the matter.

¶19

4] Learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that the appellant was dispossessed from the property which he was occupying along with his deceased grandmother and therefore, the appellant has caveatable interest in the estate of his deceased grandmother.

¶20

5] The above submissions cannot be accepted because these are not the issues that are required to be decided in testamentary petition. In case, the appellant has any grievance with regard to his alleged dispossession or his alleged rights in the suit property, it is always open to the appellant to institute appropriate proceedings in the civil court, in order to establish or protect his alleged rights and interest. In fact, such liberty has been granted to the appellant by the impugned order.

¶21

6] For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this appeal by reiterating the liberty granted to the appellant in the impugned order dated 10 June 2016. There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶22

7] In view of dismissal of the appeal, notice of motion does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

chandka

¶25

2 of 2

Rahul Ravi Kapur v. Rajendra Pal Kapoor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Ravi Kapur v. Rajendra Pal Kapoor

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

Mr. Ganpat B. Asurkar Vs M/S. Vikaylal Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Bhaskar D. Mistry Vs M/S. Vikaylal Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Akhilesh a. Chaubey Vs M/S. Vikaylal Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Rabindra Nigam and Anr. Vs Banoo Nusserwanji Cama and 7 Ors.

Shri.Harish Satramdas Bhojwani and 3 Ors. Vs Smt.Vimal Wd/O.Satramdas Bojwanii and Kavita Mirchandani and 2 Ors. (Resp.)

Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Puspasen C. Jhaveri