Dismissed

Smt. Chhaya Hanmantrao Waghmode v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Mar 2016WP/7098/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition seeking to set aside an order rejecting the petitioner's application for appointing a Court Commissioner to make inventories of movable properties in a locker. The Court held the application was premature as probate proceedings were pending.

What did the court decide?

The application for appointing a Court Commissioner was declared premature and the writ petition was dismissed against the order dated 7.7.2014.

Smt. Chhaya Hanmantrao Waghmode Vs the State of… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 / 3 WP/7098/2015

¶2

Tapadia RR/B.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7098 OF 2015

¶4

Smt. Chhaya Hanmantrao Waghmode Vs

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

.. Respondent

¶8

Mr. P.D.Pise, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. A.R.Metkari, A.G.P for Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 28/03/2016

¶10

PC :

¶11

Heard Mr. P.D.Pise, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.R.Metkari, learned A.G.P for the respondent at length.

¶12

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 7.7.2014 passed by the learned 2^nd Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Sangli below Exhibit-19 in Misc. Civil Application No. 185 of 2011. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application made by the petitioner for appointing Court Commissioner for making inventories in respect of articles lying in locker no.4 maintained by Vita Merchant Co-operative Bank Limited, Miraj Branch.

¶13

The petitioner has filed proceedings under section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, 'Act') for obtaining probate/letters of administration on the ground that Ms. Sudha D. Waghmode had executed Will dated 28.4.2001 bequeathing properties in favour of the petitioner herein. In so far as the controversy in present petition is concerned, it relates to movable

¶14

2 / 3 WP/7098/2015

¶15

properties and particularly articles lying in the locker of said Sudha Waghmode. Sudha Waghmode died on 23.5.2011. She was a spinster. The petitioner, therefore, filed application on 30.8.2011 for obtaining Probate of the Will.

¶16

During pendency of that proceedings, the petitioner took out Application Exhibit-19 on 3.12.2013 for appointing Court Commissioner for making inventories of the articles lying in the said locker. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application on the ground that the proceedings for grant of probate/letters of administration and the subject matter of the present application are different. The scope in dealing with proceedings for grant of probate/letters of administration is limited and the same does not include the subject matter of the present application.

¶17

Mr. Pise strenuously contended that after the inventories are made, it will facilitate the petitioner to pay the requisite court fee in the probate proceedings. In my opinion, the application made by the petitioner is premature, in the sense, that the proceedings for obtaining probate/letters of administration are pending. Till such time, the proceedings are decided, the petitioner could not have made application for making inventories. In case the petitioner succeeds, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Bank on the strength of decision of the trial Court. Subject to this, no case is made out for

¶18

3 / 3 WP/7098/2015

¶19

interfering with the impugned order. Petition fails and the same

¶20

is dismissed.

Smt. Chhaya Hanmantrao Waghmode v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chhaya Hanmantrao Waghmode v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Shri. Sakharam Mhadu Chaugule and Anr. Vs Baban @ Laxman Bhau Yadav (Decd)

Jamil Ahmed Adhikari Vs East India Hotel Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Sudesh Bharat Mayekar Vs Mrs. Jyoti Prakash Madye and Ors.

Abdul Sattar Abdul Bulaqui Farooqui Vs A.H. Wadia Charitable Trust and Ors.

Manohar Laxman Sawant and Anr. Vs Bhanudas Vithoba Bhosale and Ors.

Rameshchandra Govind Gavankar Vs Deepak Nemchand Shah