Court Rejects Caveat in Probate Case Involving Family Property Dispute. Caveator's claim deemed contingent and insufficient to establish caveatable interest, clearing the way for Probate of Will.


Summary of Judgement

The petitioner seeks to reject a Caveat filed by Mr. Pramod Kumar Makharia in the matter of granting Probate for the Will of the deceased Dhruva Kumar Makharia. The petitioner, the nephew and appointed executor of the deceased, claims that all heirs have consented to the Probate. The Caveator, the deceased's brother, alleges he has an interest in a property mentioned in the Will due to an unresolved family dispute and claims the deceased did not have the right to bequeath this property. The Court must decide if the Caveator has a "caveatable interest" in the Probate proceedings.

1. Introduction

  • Petitioner seeks to reject Caveat in TP/2121/2021.

2. Background Facts

  • Petition for Probate of Will dated April 14, 2014, by Dhruva Kumar Makharia.
  • Petitioner is the deceased's nephew and sole executor.
  • All heirs have consented to Probate.
  • Caveator, the deceased's brother, claims an interest in a property due to a prior family arrangement and disputes.

3. Petitioner’s Argument

  • Caveator is not a legal heir and has no caveatable interest.
  • Caveat filed to delay Probate.
  • Deceased complied with previous consent terms.

4. Legal Counsel Arguments

  • Petitioner’s Counsel: Caveat is an impediment and has no valid claim.
  • Caveator’s Counsel: Caveator has a caveatable interest due to an unresolved interest in the property.

5. Analysis by the Court

  • Caveatable interest: Defined by the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
  • Probate Court’s jurisdiction limited to the genuineness of the Will, not property title disputes.
  • Caveator's shifting arguments and adverse claims do not establish a caveatable interest.

6. Relevant Case Law

  • Reference to Supreme Court decisions and legal principles regarding caveatable interest.

7. Decision

  • Caveator’s claims seen as adverse to the testator’s estate.
  • Probate Court cannot adjudicate property title disputes.
  • Caveator’s interest deemed contingent and does not establish caveatable interest.

8. Conclusion

  • Caveator’s submission fails to meet the criteria for caveatable interest.
  • Application to reject Caveat is granted.

Case Title: Surya Prakash S. Makharia Versus Pramod Kumar Makharia

Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (7) 43

Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 332 OF 2023 IN CAVEAT (L) NO. 21133 OF 2021 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 2121 OF 2021

Advocate(s): Mr. Vikram Goel, i/b Ashok Goel, for the Applicant - Plaintiff. Mr. Jitesh Agarwal, for the Caveator.

Date of Decision: 2024-07-04