Bombay High Court
SITARAM GOVIND PHADKEversusANAND TULSHIDAS KIRAD AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petitioner has a caveatable interest in the property and must be impleaded in the probate application.
Summary
The petitioner, Sitaram Govind Phadke, a brother of the testator, challenged a order of the 10th Joint Civil Judge, Pune, which had rejected his objections to a probate application filed by the respondents. He alleged that the will was not executed by the testator and that, if the will were not proved, he would be entitled to the testator’s share, thereby having a caveatable interest in the property. The High Court examined whether the petitioner’s interest warranted his participation in the probate proceedings. The Court held that the petitioner indeed possessed a caveatable interest and should be impleaded in the pending probate application. Consequently, the order dated 9 August 2019 was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be impleaded in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 810/2014, with the writ petition allowed and no order as to costs.
Issues considered
- What is the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the property bequeathed by the will?
- Whether the petitioner should be impleaded in the probate proceedings concerning the will?
Subjects
- probate
- will
- caveatable interest
- impleadment
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
Neeta Sawant 16-WP-10660-2019.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10660 OF 2019
Shri. Sitaram Govind Phadke …..Petitioner
: Versus :
Shri. Anand Kirad & Ors. ….Respondents
Mr. Jayprakash S. Kapre, through V.C..for the Petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Thatte a/w. Mr. Vivek Arote, Mr. Akshay Dingale and Mr.
Harish Garde, for the Respondents.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C :
1) The petition challenges order dated 9 August 2019 passed by the
10th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune rejecting the objections
raised by the Petitioner to the application for issuance of probate filed by
the Respondents.
2) I have heard Mr. Kapre, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and Mr. Thatte, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents.
3) Petitioner claims to be the brother of the Testator. He
claims that the Will has actually not been executed by the Testator. In
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 1 of 2
Thursday, 3 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 16-WP-10660-2019.docx
the event the Will is not proved, Petitioner claims that he would succeed
to the share of the Testator. In my view therefore, Petitioner clearly has
a caveatable interest in the property which is bequeathed by the Will. In
that view of the matter, participation of the Petitioner in the proceedings
is necessary.
4) The Petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 9 August
2019 is set aside. The Petitioner is directed to be impleaded in Misc.
Civil Application No.810/2014.
5) The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.07
16:39:03
+0530
_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 2 of 2
Thursday, 3 September 2026
Checking your session…