JUDGMENT :

G.S. Patel, J.

Testamentary Petition No. 644 of 2018, which seeks Letters of Administration with a copy of a Will and a copy of Codicil annexed, is entirely misconceived and not maintainable. It is, in fact, barred by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Miscellaneous Petition (L) No. 1554 of 2018 which seeks removal of the executor under section 301 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (which is by consent taken on board) is equally without merit and not maintainable.

2. The Petitioners are one Sidney Francis Gomes ("Sidney") and Cynthia Desouza ("Cynthia"). They claim that one Maureen Therese Gonzales ("Maureen"), an Indian Christian who died on 8th June 2006 left a Will dated 26th October 2002 and a Codicil dated 11th November 2005. They say under this Will Maureen appointed two persons, Ivan Rodrigues and Mrs June Miranda ("June Miranda") as her executors. Ivan Rodrigues passed on. June Miranda is the surviving executor. Sidney and Cynthia claim to be entitled to demand that June Miranda must explain to them how she has administered Maureen's estate. They also ask that she be removed as an executor.

3. The question, however, is this: Exactly who are these two Petitioners in relation to the deceased Maureen? It turns out they are nobodies in relation to her estate. They are not her heirs, at least not under any known provision of law. Sidney and Cynthia are, and there is no gentler way to put this, rank outsiders to the entire estate. They are the assignees or transferees of the heirs of a lessee of a property which Maureen owned and of which she was the lessor. That is the whole of it. Their entry into Maureen's universe is on the basis, first, of a document dated 4th October 1991. This was made by one Etty Netto ("Etty") on one hand and Sidney and Cynthia on the other hand. Etty was the widow of one Merwin Netto ("Merwin"), a person to whom Maureen leased a property in Manori described in a schedule to that document under an Indenture of Lease dated 5th March 1990. Merwin died intestate on 9th July 1986. He was survived by Etty and their three children. Etty then purported to make an assignment or an agreement of assignment of this lease in favour of Sidney and Cynthia. Maureen, the testator and lessor, was not a party to this document, though alive at that time. Her name appears nowhere on it. There was then a Deed of Confirmation of 25th June 1992. Again this was between Etty on one hand and Sidney and Cynthia on the other. Mr Gadagkar says that Maureen signed this Deed of Confirmation as a witness and, therefore, 'is a party to the Deed of Confirmation and, therefore, Sidney and Cynthia are her heirs'. The submission is without merit. By signing a document as a witness, no signatory becomes a party to that document. Then Mr Gadagkar draws my attention to another Deed of Assignment dated 24th June 1992 at Exhibit "F" at page 60 between the Netto family and Sidney and Cynthia and to which Maureen was apparently a signatory and a confirming party. All that this will do is to serve to pass title to Sidney and Cynthia. It will not make them her heirs or beneficiary under a Will or Codicil or to make them persons entitled to any form of representation to her estate. Indeed the document at page 60 itself defeats the purpose of the whole Petition because on the Petitioners' own showing, during her lifetime, i.e. inter vivos, Maureen confirmed the transfer or assignment of leasehold rights in favour of Sidney and Cynthia. Mr Gadagkar says that there is a clause in the Will by which Maureen said that any lessees of her property would be owners. That, again, is a question of title, not of succession. If there is any threat to the title Sidney and Cynthia claim to have acquired, they have the 1992 document and a copy of the Will to fall back on and certainly there are remedies available in any civil proceedings. A testamentary proceeding at their instance is thus entirely misconceived and I see no reason why the