The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit, allowing for correction of errors in judgments, decrees, or orders from any accidental slip or omission, was central to the court's decision.

1. These two Chamber Summonses are filed by one Jyotsna Rasiklal Maniar (“Jyotsna”). She claims to be the daughter of one Prabhudas Chaganlal Mehta (“Prabhudas”), the predeceased brother of the Testator, Shantilal Chaganlal Mehta (“Shantilal”). There are two Testamentary Suits: Testamentary Suit No. 22 of 1990 and Testamentary Suit No. 136 of 2015. I may note, in passing, that the latter, Testamentary Suit No. 136 of 2015, has come to be numbered in the quite peculiar circumstances that are set out in my order dated 27th July 2015.

2. As previously noted, two Wills are propounded, both said to have been made by Shantilal. Yogesh Chunilal Maniar, the Plaintiff in Testamentary Suit No. 22 of 1990, propounds a Will dated 27th May 1983; Dr. Bakul Chandulal Mehta, a neighbour of Shantilal Mehta, propounds a Will dated 19th July 1987 in Testamentary Suit No. 136 of 2015. I have previously directed that the Suit relating to the later Will, i.e., where Dr Bakul Mehta is the Plaintiff, must be tried first. In addition, Dr. Bakul Mehta has also filed a specific performance Suit No. 690 of 1987.

3. Now Jyotsna seeks in these Chamber Summonses that she be made a party-Defendant to both Suits. She has also filed a substantially similar Chamber Summons in Suit No. 690 of 1987, also seeking to be joined as a party-Defendant. Her claim is based on the assertion that she is Shantilal’s heir, his predeceased brother’s daughter, Shantilal having no children of his own, and, as such, is entitled to succeed to his estate.

4. These two Chamber Summonses were first considered by this Court on 8th October 2014 (R.S. Dalvi, J.). The learned Judge found, prima facie, that the documents then produced by Mrs. Jyotsna did not inspire confidence and did not establish her heirship, i.e., that she had not shown that she was an heir who could succeed to any part of Shantilal Mehta’s estate. Some of her documents were considered. Then, in paragraph 8, the learned Judge directed as follows:

“8. In view of the aforesaid controversy, oral evidence shall have to be led by the Applicant to prove her heirship and she shall have to be cross-examined by the Petitioner/Plaintiff in the above suit and both the above petitions. The Applicant shall also have to explain the delay of 25 years in taking out this application for challenging the respective wills in the above suits.”

5. The trial in Dr. Bakul Mehta’s suit, one that was to proceed first, has remained at this stage ever since. For the past two years, without any progress.

6. Mr. Shah, who appears for Yogesh Maniar, submits that these Chamber Summonses are only an attempt to delay the progress of the two competing testamentary actions. There is no valid explanation for the delay on Jyotsna’s part. He also points out that although Shantilal Mehta had no biological children, he did have an adopted daughter, Usha Mehta. That adoption has never been challenged in any proceeding. Jyotsna herself has never brought suit to have that adoption invalidated. In his submission, so long as that adoption remains unchallenged, it is Usha, the adopted daughter, who alone who can succeed to Shantilal Mehta’s estate upon intestacy. She alone will have a caveatable interest. I believe he is correct.

7. Mr. Tripathi, who represents Jyotsna, submits that no adoption deed has been produced. Jyotsna has now placed additional documents explaining more fully her claim to heirship; for instance, how it is that she came to be taking her schooling in Fort, Mumbai though living at Kadivali at the relevant time, a point on which Mrs Dalvi J expressed doubt in her order. He also submits that Jyotsna learnt of these suits only in 2013 when, in response to a public notice that she issued proposing to sell the property, both Yogesh Maniar and Dr. Bakul Mehta sent in written objections. It is only thereafter that she was able to file these Chamber Summonses.

8. Finally, he submits that in view of the directions in paragraph 8 of the order of 8th O