Skip to content


Pirojshah Bhikaji Vs. Pestonji Merwanji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Appeal No. 28 of 1909
Judge
Reported in(1910)12BOMLR366
AppellantPirojshah Bhikaji
RespondentPestonji Merwanji
DispositionAppeal rejected
Excerpt:
.....the interest which entitles a person to put in a caveat must be an interest in the estate of the deceased person, that is, there should be no dispute whatever to the title of the deceased to the estate, but that the person who wishes to come in as caveator must show some interest in that estate derived from the deceased by inheritance or otherwise.;abhiram dass v. gopal dass (1889) i.l.r. 17 cal. 48, followed. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for..........should be no dispute whatever as to the title of the deceased to the estate, but that the person who wishes to come in as caveat-or must show some interest in that estate derived from the deceased by inheritance or otherwise. that is the construction which the calcutta high court has put upon the section in the case above referred to, and that seems to be in accordance with the language of the section itself. in the present case caveator no. 1 claims adversely to the alleged testator. according to the latter the caveator has no interest whatever in the property. but according to caveator no. 1, he and the alleged testator were sharers in the properties concerned. therefore, to the extent of the share which this caveator alleges he has in the properties, he claims adversely to the.....
Judgment:

N.G. Chandavarkar, J.

1. We think the case falls within the principle of Abhiram Dass v. Gopal Dass ILR (1889) Cal. 48. The provisions of Section 250 of the Indian Succession Act X of 1865, and Section 81 of the Probate and Administration Act V of 1881, are that the interest which entitles a person to put in a caveat must be an interest in the estate of the deceased person, that is, there should be no dispute whatever as to the title of the deceased to the estate, but that the person who wishes to come in as caveat-or must show some interest in that estate derived from the deceased by inheritance or otherwise. That is the construction which the Calcutta High Court has put upon the section in the case above referred to, and that seems to be in accordance with the language of the section itself. In the present case caveator No. 1 claims adversely to the alleged testator. According to the latter the caveator has no interest whatever in the property. But according to caveator No. 1, he and the alleged testator were sharers in the properties concerned. Therefore, to the extent of the share which this caveator alleges he has in the properties, he claims adversely to the testator. So also as regards caveators Nos. 2 and 3, the alleged testator claims complete ownership of the property by reason of a sale to him whereas the caveators in question claim the properties as their own mortgaged to the testator. Therefore, that is an adverse interest claimed by them.

2. We confirm the order with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //