Rajendra Pal Kapoor v. Rahul Ravi Kapur (Caveator)
Case brief
What is this about?
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
28-CST6-16.DOC
ATUL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 6 OF 2016
IN
CAVEAT NO. 295 OF 2015
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION (L) NO. 1800 OF 2015
Rajendra Pal Kapoor…Petitioner
Versus
Rahul Ravi Kapur…Caveator
…Caveator
Mr. Nirman Sharma, with Ms. Shivani Soni, i/b Deven Dwarkadas
& Partners, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rahul Ravi Kapur, Caveator in person.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 10th June 2016
PC:-
1. Heard.
2.The Caveator appears in person. He is the grandson of the
deceased. It is an admitted position that his father, the deceased’s
son, is still alive. As a result, the Caveator has no caveatable interest.
He is not a heir of the deceased Mrs. Nirmal Ramlal Kapur. In view
Page 1 of 2
10th June 2016
28-CST6-16.DOC
of this, the Chamber Summons seeking discharge of the Caveat
must succeed and the Caveat must be discharged.
3.Having said that, my understanding is that the Caveator’s
concern is that he was dispossessed some time ago from the
premises in which he claims to have been staying with his deceased
grandmother. This is not either an appropriate or correct remedy for
that purpose. The Caveator is at liberty to adopt such proceedings
as he may be advised to protect his rights and contentions.
4.The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a) with no order as to costs.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
Page 2 of 2
10th June 2016
Rajendra Pal Kapoor
G.S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court