The Court allowed an application to discharge a caveat filed in probate proceedings, holding that the caveator had abandoned the opposition by withdrawing a separate suit on identical grounds and failing to appear despite service.
Caveat dated May 19, 2005 discharged/dismissed as non-maintainable.
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.
38_IA3425_22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3425 OF 2022
IN
SUIT NO.49 OF 2005 IN
PETITION NO.104 OF 2005
| Padma Raghava Shetty | … | Applicant / Plaintiff |
|---|---|---|
| Vs. | ||
| Yashodha Krishna Shetty and others | … | Respondents / Defendants |
Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Mrs. Lata Dhruv, Ms. Swati Sutar and Mr. Ronak Shah i/b. Dhru & Co. for Applicant / Plaintiff.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 05, 2024
P.C. :
. By this application, the applicant / original petitioner and now the plaintiff is seeking discharge of the caveat on the ground that the contentions raised in the caveat were identical to the contentions raised on behalf of the caveator in a separate suit filed before the City Civil Court and in the light of the fact that the said suit has been withdrawn on 17.07.2014.
MINALSANDIPPARAB Digitally signedby MINALSANDIP PARABDate: 2024.02.0614:19:37 +0530
1/3
38_IA3425_22.doc
served with the papers pertaining to the present application and that the legal representatives of the caveator, except Santosh K. Shetty, were all served by way of speed post. The affidavit of service tendered on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. It shows that in the case of Santosh Krishna Shetty, the packet sent by speed post was returned as the addressee had left without instructions. Considering the contents of the affidavit of service, as also the assertion that the advocate representing the caveators has been served with the papers pertaining to the present application, this Court is proceeding to consider the application on merits.
2/3
38_IA3425_22.doc
plaintiff therein, being the caveator in these proceedings, had given up the contentions for opposing the subject Will. Despite service, the legal representatives of the original caveator have chosen not to appear before this Court, as a consequence of which, the statements made in the application remain uncontroverted.
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to discharge / dismiss the Caveat dated May 19, 2005 filed by the Caveator / Defendants / Respondents as non-maintainable.”
(MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the caveat should be discharged as the caveator had withdrawn a separate suit on identical contentions and did not appear before the Court.
Padma Raghava Shetty
Yashodha Krishna Shetty and others
MANISH PITALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
