Disposed

Ruby Cyril Dsouza v. Cecilia Reynold Dsouza

Bombay HC27 Jun 2024APP/65/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench addressed an interim application in a Testamentary Suit. The court held that since the appellants' appeal raises a serious legal question regarding the voidness of a bequest under Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, the Testamentary Suitehearing must be stayed until the appeal is finally decided.

What did the court decide?

The Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 2005 was stayed until the appellants' appeal in Appeal No. 65 of 2024 is heard.

Ruby Cyril Dsouza vs Cecilia Reynold Dsouza — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1-app-65-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL NO.65 OF 2024 IN

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.20977 OF 2023 IN

¶5

Digitally signed by ASHVINI ASHVINI BAPPASAHEB BAPPASAHEB KAKDE KAKDE Date: 2024.06.28 16:05:33 +0530

¶6

TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.5 OF 2005 IN

¶7

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.226 OF 2004 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.971 OF 2024

¶8

Ruby Cyril D’souza & Ors.

¶9

.. Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Smt. Cecilia Reynold D’souza & Ors.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Mr. Nitin V. Gangal a/w. Namita Mestry & Prerna Shukla, Advocates for the Appellants.

¶14

Mr. Raj Patel, Mr. Vinayak J. Phadake, Mr. Abhishek Khambekar i/b. Mr. Vinayak J. Phadake, Advocates for Org. Plaintifs/Org. Petitioners/Respondents.

¶15

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

¶16

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JUNE 27, 2024

¶17

P. C.

¶18

The above Appeal, raises a very interesting question of law. It is

¶19

the interplay between Section 67 and Section 255 of the Indian Succession

¶20

Act, 1925 and whether Testamentary Court can go into the said issue. The

¶21

Page 1 of 3 JUNE 27, 2024

¶22

Ashvini Narwade

¶23

1-app-65-2024.doc

¶24

above Appeal was admitted on 27^th March 2024 and the learned Single Judge was requested to consider the prayer, if made by the Appellants, to defer the hearing of the Suit on the next date, on account of pendency of the Appeal.

¶25

Before the impugned order was passed, the Appellants before the learned Single Judge had requested for an additional issue to be framed and which is more particularly set out in paragraph 6 of the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the issue is reproduced herein under:-

¶26

“Whether Letters of Administration with Will dated 16^th April, 1994 annexed thereto can be granted to the Petitioners as the grant pursuant to the bequest made by the said Will is void under the latter part of Section 67 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 constituting an exception to such grant under Section 255 of the said Act?”

¶27

The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the question whether a bequest is void because of Section 67 is not something that the Testamentary Court can go into and that would not fall as an exception as contemplated under Section 255 of the said Act.

¶28

Considering that the above Appeal is admitted and now we are considering this issue, we are of the opinion that till the above appeal is heard, the learned Single Judge ought not to go on with the Suit, as the issue raised before us would have a serious bearing in the suit.

¶29

Ashvini Narwade

¶30

Page 2 of 3 JUNE 27, 2024

¶31

1-app-65-2024.doc

¶32

In this circumstances, we direct that Testamentary Suit No. 5 of 2005 shall not proceed till the above Appeal is heard.

¶33

Place the above Appeal for hearing and final disposal on 30^th July 2024 at 2:30 pm.

¶34

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶35

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]

¶36

Page 3 of 3 JUNE 27, 2024

¶37

Ashvini Narwade

Ruby Cyril Dsouza v. Cecilia Reynold Dsouza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruby Cyril Dsouza v. Cecilia Reynold Dsouza

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Usha Kiran Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sukumar Bhoja Shetty vs Gunapal Bhoja Shetty

Raj Kantilal Shah vs Sanskar Gem Pvt. Ltd.

Jaihind Oil Mills Company through Partner Rajesh Kishnani vs the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Greater Mumbai

Global Exim vs the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 17 1 Mumbai and Ors.

Vitthal Chintaman Paradkar vs Reji Varghese S/O. P.J.Varghese