Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Learned counsel invited my attention to the affidavit in support of chamber summons filed by the caveators and would submit that there is no averment in the affidavit that any new facts are introduced by the plaintiff in evidence. It is submitted that chamber summons for seeking permission to file additional affidavit in support of caveat came to be filed only after 14 days after service of notice of motion seeking dismissal of caveat of the applicants, filed by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that even in the additional affidavit the applicants propose to file, applicants have not claimed any caveatable interest. It is submitted that though the caveator no.2 has filed affidavit in support of caveat after one year of the affidavit filed by the caveator no.1, caveator no.2 has simplicitor adopted the averments made in the said affidavit and did not raise any plea claiming caveatable interest. Even in the affidavits now proposed to be filed, the caveators have not explained as to why Will could not be disputed in earlier affidavit in support of caveat.

18. In rejoinder, Mr.Cama learned counsel for the applicants to the chamber summons submits that since applicants claim interest in the estate which is sought to be bequeathed by the said deceased, applicants have caveatable interest. It is submitted that it is not required to be stated in the affidavit in support of caveat that the caveator has caveatable interest. No sooner this issue is raised in the affidavit in support of notice of motion by the plaintiff, caveators have disclosed their cavetable interest in the affidavit in reply.

28. It is not in dispute that the caveator No.1 is not a class I heir of the said deceased testator. Plaintiff and her two sons who admittedly fall in class I are alive. Two sons of the plaintiff have filed consent affidavits. The mother of the said deceased expired after the death of the deceased and her two sons are served with citation and they have already filed separate affidavits. Question thus arises for consideration of this Court is that in these circumstances whether caveator No.1 who is cousin of the said deceased has caveatable interest and whether caveator No.2 which is a partnership firm also has a caveatable interest and whether both these caveators can oppose the grant of probate.

31. In the original affidavit in support of caveat the caveator No.1 did not raise any other dispute other than the title dispute. In my view, even if the probate petition is rejected for any reasons, even on intestacy the caveator No.1 or 2 would not inherit any property forming part of the estate of the deceased testator. On both the grounds the caveators are not entitled to maintain the caveat. In my view, the caveator No.1 as well as caveator No.2 have no caveatable interest and thus question of allowing the caveators to raise any issue of forgery and or fabrication and that also by filing an additional affidavit at this stage did not arise. In my view only a person having caveatable interest can raise an issue of forgery and fabrication in the Will by filing affidavit in support of caveat and not a stranger to the estate of the deceased. Be that as it may, Caveator No.2 has adopted the affidavit in support of caveat filed by caveator No.1 after more than a year of filing such caveat. The caveators had already engaged new advocate to represent them. I am thus not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the caveator that the grounds disputing the validity of Will could not be raised in the earlier affidavit in support of caveat inadvertently or due to any paucity of time. No such allegations have been made in affidavit in support of caveat filed by caveator No.2 though the same was filed after more than one year.