MAHABANOO NAVROZ KOTWAL Vs. PILOO FALI BOMANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this chamber summons, the applicant (original petitioner/plaintiff) seeks an order and direction that some of the portion of the affidavit in lieu of examinationinchief filed by Dr Navroze S. Kotwal on 8 th April 2014, proposed to be examined as a witness by the defendants be expunged from the affidavit or appropriate order be passed for ignoring those portion referred in the schedule appended to the chamber summons while recording his evidence as witness of the defendants. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this chamber summons are as follows :

(2.) On 10th June 1998, the applicant herein filed testamentary petition No.504 of 1998 interalia praying for probate of the alleged last Will and Testament of Nergish Keki Cassad @ Nergish Keki Casad. It is the case of the applicant that under the said alleged last Will & Testament dated 7th February 1996 of the said Mrs Nergish Keki (herein after referred to as the said deceased), the applicant as well as Dr Navroze S. Kotwal were appointed as executors of the said Will. Under the said alleged Will & Testament, some of the properties are bequeathed by the said deceased in favour of the applicant. Along with the said testamentary petition, the applicant filed an affidavit of Dr Navroze S. Kotwal affirmed on 10th June 1998. In the said affidavit, the said deponent stated that he was executor named in the last Will & Testament dated 7th February 1996 of the deceased. The applicant who is coexecutrix has applied for the probate of the said last Will & Testament reserving his right of the said deponent to apply for the probate of the said Will. In the said affidavit, the said deponent reserved his right to come in and apply for the Probate of the said last Will & Testament dated 7th February 1996 of the deceased and further stated that he had no objection to the probate of the said Will being granted to the petitioner therein.

(3.) Upon filing caveats by the two caveators, the said petition was converted into a suit. In the affidavit in support of caveat, the caveators disputed that the said deceased at all executed any Will. The caveators also denied that the petitioner was executrix and Dr Navroze S. Kotwal was the executor of the said Will.