JAYSHREE RAGHUVIR BALGI Vs. GOKULDAS SHESHGIRI PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE material facts having bearing on the preliminary issues framed by the Court regarding locus standi of the Caveator to file the Caveat herein are as under :

(2.) EVEN if the deceased had died intestate, the estate of the deceased would have been inherited by the widow and the daughters of the deceased. Under section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 when the relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule are in existence at the time of death of a Hindu who died intestate, relatives specified in Class II of the Schedule are not entitled to inherit. In such a situation, relatives not specified in Class I of the Schedule cannot be considered as heirs of the deceased. It is not possible to agree with the submission made on behalf of the Caveator that all the relatives of the deceased are to be considered as heirs of the deceased, whether the said relatives are specified in Class I of the Schedule or Class II of the Schedule.

(3.) IN (Pirojshah Bikhaji v. Pistonji Merwanji) I. L. R. 34 Bom. 459, the Division Bench of our High Court held that only such person can file a caveat who has interest in the estate of the deceased person. It is also imperative that the Caveator must not dispute title of the deceased to the properties disposed of by Will. In other words the Caveator cannot claim adversely to the testator and seek resolution of a title dispute by the Probate Court. By this judgment, Chandavarkar, J. , on behalf of the Division Bench, approved the principles of law laid down by the High Court of Calcutta in the welknown case of (Abhiram Dass v. Gopal Dass) reported in I. L. R. 17 Calcutta 48. It is well settled that the Probate Court cannot decide disputed questions of title in respect of the estate of the deceased and such disputes can be resolved only in a regular Civil Suit.