The main legal point established in the judgment is that no grant could be made in favor of a person who makes a claim adverse to that of the estate. The court exercised its discretion and granted the estate jointly and severally to the defendants, excluding the elderly defendant from the responsibility.

1. This is a petition for Letters of Administration to the estate, property and credits of one Shankarrao H. Parelkar (“Shankarrao”), who died on 8th November 1979. Shankarrao was survived by his widow Sitabai; his sons Manohar, Yeshwant and Harihar; and a daughter, Sarojini Bhatte. Shankarrao died intestate; none have propounded any Will or testamentary writing. His estate would, therefore, devolve as on intestacy, with a 1/5th or 20% share in his estate going to his widow and four children respectively. This is not disputed.

2. At the time of his death, Shankarrao was a 50% partner in a firm known as M/s Parelkar & Dallas. This was a firm of architects of some considerable repute and standing among architects and in the construction industry in Mumbai. It had considerable business, revenue and goodwill. The firm continues today, though, as we shall see, in considerably changed circumstances. The firm was first established on 19th October 1948 and has been in practice since then. Vinay Manohar Parelkar, Shankarrao’s grandson (Mahonar’s son) claims that he entered into partnership with the other 50% partner Mr. Dallas with effect from the date of Shankarrao’s death. He claims to have been inducted into this partnership, but does not show that he paid any consideration for this either to Shankarrao’s estate or to Mr. Dallas.

3. On 20th October 1981, Manohar, Shankarrao’s eldest son, filed the present Petition No. 825 of 1981 for Letters of Administration to Shankarrao’s estate, property and credits. The petition includes a schedule of assets. Of the very many assets listed, there are also certain immovable properties, one of which is a land with building known as Sita Sadan at Plot No. 75, Keluskar Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar. There are other immovable properties too and there is also his interest in the partnership firm of Parelkar and Dallas. The petition, however, as originally brought showed Shankarrao’s interest in this firm as being of the value of only Rs. 3167.10., Item 7 of the schedule of the estates to the Petition.

4. Following the filing of this Petition many of the lineal descendants of Shankarrao and their own heirs passed away. The petition has been amended several times to reflect these changes. For convenience a family tree showing the relations between the parties is appended to this judgment.

5. On 14th December 1981, Shankarrao’s second son Yeshwant passed away. He was survived by his widow, Sandhya; the couple had no children.

6. Even at this time, the petition for Letters of Administration, though pending, had not been contested.

7. Sometime in 1984, Harihar, Shankarrao’s younger son, filed Suit No. 8009 of 1984 in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay seeking reliefs in relation to the firm of M/s. Parelkar & Dallas in his capacity as one of Shankarrao’s heirs. To this suit, Manohar’s son Vinay (Harihar’s nephew) was joined as Defendant No. 2(b). Shankarrao’s other heirs were also party Defendants, as was Mr. Dallas, the remaining 50% partner in the firm. Subsequently, Vinay’s wife, Neelam, was also joined as Defendant No. 6 to this partnership suit. Many of the heirs joined to this suit supported Vinay.

8. On 21st December 1985, Harihar (Shankarrao’s third son and the Plaintiff in the Bombay City Civil Court partnership action) filed a Caveat and an Affidavit in Support in the present petition for Letters of Administration. The petition was then renumbered as Suit No. 2 of 1986.

9. About two years later, on 10th November 1987, Harihar executed a Release Deed in respect of one of the properties included in Shankarrao’s estate. Harihar reserved his rights in other properties and the remaining estate of Shankarrao and then agreed, in that Release Deed, one to which I will turn presently, to withdraw his Caveat. Harihar later claimed that he did not in fact ever withdraw that Caveat since the commitment