Important Point – Court cannot go into issue of title of deceased in respect of any property which is stated to be forming part of estate of deceased in testamentary proceedings.

1. This is a Petition under Section 301 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (“the Succession Act”; “the ISA”). It seeks the removal of the 1st Respondent, one Prabhakar Deolankar (“Deolankar”) as the executor of a Will dated 25th April 2006 said to have been left by one Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane (“Dr Dastane”). The 2nd Petitioner, Sucheta, is Dr. Dastane’s widow. The 1st Petitioner and Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are their three daughters. Deolankar is Dr. Dastane’s brother-in-law. The 4th Respondent is the Maharashtra Executor and Trustee Company Pvt Ltd (“METCO”), a company that provides, inter alia, executorship and trusteeship services and for which it charges fees. On 18th June 2007, Deolankar obtained probate to Dr. Dastane’s Will from the District Court. In this litigation, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 support their sister, Petitioner No.1, and their mother, Petitioner No.2. Together, I refer to them in this judgment as “the Dastane Family”. Where necessary, I have referred to them by their first names. This is only for convenience and no disrespect is intended.

2. The matter is considerably complicated by a series of subsequent events, and the onset of disputes between the Dastane Family on the one hand and Deolankar on the other. These are all events of the five-year period from 2007 to 2012, and they seem to have caused parties on both sides to adopt utterly intractable positions. Between the time of the probate application and today, there are or have been as many as twelve or thirteen legal proceedings of various description, ranging from writ petitions to miscellaneous applications and contempt petitions. Of immediate concern are two petitions filed under Section 263 of the Succession for revocation of the probate: the first of these, M.A. 21 of 2008 is filed by Shubhada; and it appears that there is yet another revocation petition No. 1187 of 2013 filed by Sucheta, Dr. Dastane’s widow. The latter was once dismissed on the ground of delay; a review petition was also dismissed; but the delay seems to have been condoned in a writ petition by this Court. In those revocation petitions, as indeed also in the present petition for Deolankar’s removal, the Dastane Family contends that the will of which probate was obtained was not, in fact, his last Will; that it is forged; and that there was an earlier Will, never revoked, dated 21st March 2006. While no relief in that regard (i.e., as to the genuineness of the two wills) can be examined in the present Miscellaneous Petition, yet the pendency of the revocation petitions before the District Court is of consequence because of the cast of the prayers in the present Miscellaneous Petition for Deolankar’s removal. Prayers (a) and (b) of the present Miscellaneous Petition read:

(a) That by an appropriate order or direction of this Hon’ble Court, to suspend, remove or discharge the Executor, i.e., the Respondent No.1, i.e., Mr. Prabhakar Narsingh Deolankar, appointed under the Probate Petition No. M.A. 359 of 2006 as the Executor of the “last Will of the deceased Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane”;

(b) That by an appropriate order or direction of this Hon’ble Court appoint the Petitioner No.1 as the executor of “Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane” to administer the estate of the deceased Dr. Narayan Ganesh Dastane.”

3. On the face of it, these reliefs are inconsistent with the probate revocation application and the assertions that the probated Will dated 25th April 2006 is not genuine. Copies of both the probated Will dated 25th April 2006 and the previous one dated 21st March 2006 are annexed to the Petition. In both, Deolankar was appointed an executor. The present prayer (a) is clearly incorrectly worded: Deolankar was not appointed an executor by the probate court, but under the Will itself. Further, in this Petition there is no prayer for revocation (as there could not be, that jurisdiction lying solely with the District Court). Consequently, if the relief is granted, Deolankar would stand re