Allowed

Anant Sitaram Birje and Amit Anant Birje v. Vithabai Sitaram Birje - Caveator

Bombay HC18 Dec 2018CST/80/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order in a testamentary matter condones a 40-day delay in filing a caveat and supporting affidavit, accepting a doctor's certificate as sufficient proof of the applicant's age and health without a prescription. The applicant's prayer is granted, and the petitioner is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 40 days' delay in filing caveat and affidavit; acceptance of caveat; conversion of testamentary petition into a testamentary suit; no order as to costs.

Anant Sitaram Birje and Amit Anant Birje Vs… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

14-cst80-18.doc

¶2

vai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.80 OF 2018 IN CAVEAT (LODGING) NO.48 OF 2018 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.1906 of 2017

¶5

Vithabai S. Birje

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶8

Anant S. Birje & Ors.

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

Mr.Sameer Kolge for the Applicant.

¶11

Ms.Anita Vasani I/b Mr.Omprakash Pandey for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER, 2018.

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

By this chamber summons, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the caveat and the affidavit in support of the caveat.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the affidavit in support of the caveat and also the affidavit in reply of the respondent no.1.

¶16

The chamber summons is opposed by the petitioners on

¶17

the ground that the applicant has not annexed the prescription of

¶18

1/2

¶19

14-cst80-18.doc

¶20

medicine or other supporting reports with the Doctor's certificate.

¶21

The certificate annexed would clearly indicate that the applicant is 68 years old and is suffering from various diseases and was under the treatment of Dr.S.M. Borkar since 28^th December, 2017. I am inclined to accept the explanation rendered in the affidavit in support of the chamber summons and more particularly paragraphs 2 and 3. There is no substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the certificate issued by the Doctor was required to be accompanying with the medical report or prescription.

¶22

For the reasons recorded in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit in support of the chamber summons, the delay of 40 days in filing the caveat and the affidavit in support of the caveat is condoned.

¶23

The Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court is directed to accept the said caveat and affidavit in support thereof and to convert the testamentary petition into testamentary suit. No order as to costs.

¶24

(R.D. DHANUKA, J.)

¶25

2/2

Anant Sitaram Birje and Amit Anant Birje v. Vithabai Sitaram Birje - Caveator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Sitaram Birje and Amit Anant Birje v. Vithabai Sitaram Birje - Caveator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanika Santosh Mhatre Vs Santosh Dattatrey Mhatre (Deceased)

The Springs Condominium Association of Apartment Owners and Anr. Vs Cbre South Asia Pvt. Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Babulal B. Jain Vs M/S. Esque Finmark Private Limited and 5 Ors.

Lavkush Suresh Gupta and 2 Ors. Vs Suresh Chandra Prakash Gupta (Deceased)

Dharmshi D. Bhanushali and 11 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay and 3 Ors.

Raghunandan U. Bangalorekar and 2 Ors. Vs K.Subramanya Karanth (Caveator)