Dismissed

Smt.Usha Shrikant Rege v. Gauri Gajanan Rege and Apurva Gajanan Rege (Pro. Res.) and Satyajit S/O Padmakar Rege Applicant

Bombay HC12 Oct 2022CHS/107/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a chamber summons filed by an applicant seeking to be joined as a respondent in pending testamentary proceedings. The court held the application was misconceived as the applicant, being the son of a prior consentor, had no higher rights than his father in relation to the Will.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Summons No. 107 of 2017 was dismissed as it was thoroughly misconceived and without substance.

Smt.Usha Shrikant Rege Vs Gauri Gajanan Rege and… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

904-OSCHS-107-2017-IN-APP-581-2014.DOC

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 107 OF 2017

¶4

IN

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 183 OF 2016

¶6

IN

¶7

APPEAL NO. 581 OF 2014 IN

¶8

TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO 46 OF 2013 AND

¶9

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO 2 OF 1993

¶10

Satyajit S/o Padmakar RegeApplicant
(Prop.Respondents)
In the matter between
Usha Shrikant Rege…Appellant
(Orig.Plaintiff)
Versus
Gauri G Rege &…Respondent
Satyajit S/o Padmakar Rege… Applicant/
Intervenor

¶11

None for the Applicant.
Ms Jesal Shah, i/b Jyoti Shah for Respondent/Original Appellant

¶12

CORAMG.S. Patel &
Gauri Godse, JJ.
DATED:12th October 2022

¶13

PC:-

¶14

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2022.10.13 17:19:19 +0530

¶15

Page 1 of 3
12th October 2022

¶16

904-OSCHS-107-2017-IN-APP-581-2014.DOC

¶17

1. The Chamber Summons is by a proposed Respondent, one Satyajit Padmakar Rege.

¶18

2.The dispute was in regard to a Will by Mangesh Rege. The
original Plaintiff, Shrikant Rege, one of the sons of Mangesh Rege.
He sought Letters of Administration with Will Annexed. Padmakar
Rege, another son, consented to the grant. The Petition was
opposed by Gauri Rege, the widow of another son. The suit was
thereafter dismissed. Shrikant’s widow, Usha, is the Appellant
before us. Gauri, too, died. Her daughter Apurva was brought on
record as the Respondent in the appeal. Apurva has acute medical
condition. She suffers from Down’s Syndrome.

¶19

3.Between Usha and Apurva all disputes were compromised
and we passed an order on 7th October 2022. At that time, it was
brought to our attention that the present Chamber Summons was as
yet pending. We therefore listed it separately. It was on board
yesterday. It did not reach. It was directed to be placed on the
supplementary board today.

¶20

4. None appears for the Applicant.

¶21

5.In any case we do not see how such an application lies. The
Applicant, who proposes that he be joined as a Respondent, is the
son of Padmakar Rege. The applicant Satyajeet can have no higher
rights then Padmakar did in relation to Mangesh’s Will. Padmakar
had already accepted the Will and consented to the grant of the

¶22

Page 2 of 3
12th October 2022

¶23

904-OSCHS-107-2017-IN-APP-581-2014.DOC

¶24

Letters of Administration Will annexed in favour of Shrikant Rege,
the Original Plaintiff.

¶25

6.The Chamber Summons is thoroughly misconceived. Thus,
apart from the non appearance of the Applicant and non service of
the Chamber Summons, on merits the Chamber Summons is also
without substance. It is dismissed.

¶26

(Gauri Godse, J)

¶27

 (G. S. Patel, J)

¶28

Page 3 of 3
12th October 2022

Smt.Usha Shrikant Rege v. Gauri Gajanan Rege and Apurva Gajanan Rege (Pro. Res.) and Satyajit S/O Padmakar Rege Applicant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Usha Shrikant Rege v. Gauri Gajanan Rege and Apurva Gajanan Rege (Pro. Res.) and Satyajit S/O Padmakar Rege Applicant

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

Bank of Baroda Vs Everframe Construction Pvt. Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Bank of Baroda Vs Everfame Construction Pvt. Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Bank of Baroda Vs Everframe Construction Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Ashutosh S/o Shivkumar Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Pooja Balasaheb Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. C.B. Enterprises, Thr. Its Prop. Mr. Sushil Bramhadin Mishra Vs Anupama B.Shah,Prop. of M/S. Anupam Developers Thr. Her Constitued Attonery,Mr. Surendra Singh Sola