VEENA RAMCHANDRA PATEL Vs. BAKHTAWAR ARZAN GHADIALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Notice of Motion seeks dismissal of the Caveat inter alia on the ground that the Caveator, one Bakhtawar Arzan Ghadially, a Parsi Zoroastrian, is not an heir of the Testator; that the Caveator has in her Affidavit in Support of the Caveat claimed an interest or a title adverse to that of the deceased; and that the Caveat and Affidavit in Support are beyond time without accompanying application for condonation of delay.

(2.) The Petition for Letters of Administration with Will annexed is brought by one Veena Ramchandra Patel. She is not related to the Testator, one Dinshaw Hormusji Gandhi, who died in Mumbai on 7th December 2013. Veena Patel propounds a Will dated 27th December 2009. In her Petition, the Petitioner claims that the Testator was a widower at the time of his death and was not survived by any lineal descendants. She also claims that there were no agnates or cognates and, further, that she was unaware of any relatives of the deceased Testator. Service was, therefore, said to be effected by publication through newspapers. It seems this was done on 6th April 2014 in Free Press Journal and Jam-e-Jamshed.

(3.) Paragraph 9 of the probate Petition is of some significance and reads thus: