Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: thackeray in Anil Dattatray Parab vs Jayadev Bal Thackeray on 5 May, 2014Matching Fragments
By this Notice of Motion, the plaintiffs seek that the counter claim made by the defendant as pleaded in paragraphs 5 to 7, 9 and 126 to 132 of the affidavit in support of the caveat dated 12th February, 2013 be rejected as not maintainable being beyond the testamentary and intestate jurisdiction of this court.
2. Mr.Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs invited my attention to various paragraphs of the affidavit in support of caveat which indicates that it is averred by the defendant that the defendant has 1/3 rd share in all the immoveable and moveable properties known and unknown to him and seeks to make a counter claim in the said affidavit in support of the caveat in respect of his alleged 1/3rd share in all the properties of the deceased Mr.Bal K.Thackeray. My attention is also invited to the prayers in the affidavit in support of caveat by which the defendant has sought a declaration that the defendant is entitled to 1/3 rd share in the entire estate and properties of Mr.Bal Keshav Thackeray and he is kvm 22-NMTL66.14 entitled to use, occupy, possess and enjoy such properties forming part of his 1/3 rd share. The defendant also seeks appointment of a fit person as Commissioner to take inventory of all such properties and to divide the entire estate and properties of the deceased and grant 1/3rd share out of such properties to the defendant.
15. It is not in dispute that the said deceased Mr.Bal Thackeray had three sons including Mr.Bindumadhav Thackeray who predeceased the deceased. If any such petition for letters of administration is filed by the defendant, citation would be also required to be served on the legal heirs of the said predeceased son of the said deceased Mr.Bal Thackeray. All such reliefs are beyond the jurisdiction of the testamentary court. The counter claim thus made by the defendant in various paragraphs stated aforesaid and particularly in paragraph 132 are accordingly rejected as not maintainable. Notice of Motion is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.