The court affirmed that a party claiming caveatable interest must prove their claim, and failure to do so results in dismissal of their opposition to the grant of Letters of Administration.

JUDGMENT :

1. The captioned Testamentary Suit is filed for Letters of Administration (with a Will annexed) in respect of the estate of one Dr. Ms. Dileep Cheema (“the Deceased”), who passed away on 8th July 2011. The Suit is opposed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (“the Cheema’s”) who claim to be the nephews of the Deceased and Defendant No. 4 (“Neelam”) who the Plaintiff accepts is the niece of the Deceased.

2. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is useful for context to set out the following facts, viz.

i. The Will of the Deceased which is being propounded by the Plaintiff is dated 15th May 1986 (“the said Will”). By the said Will, the Deceased had named one Dr. Kate Patel (“Kate Patel”) as both her sole executrix and her sole beneficiary. The Deceased and Kate Patel were the closest of friends who were both Doctors who not only lived together but also ran a hospital together.

ii. Kate Patel passed away on 6th October 2011 leaving behind her last Will and Testament dated 13th August 2011. In her last Will and Testament, Katel Patel named the Plaintiff as one of the executors as also a beneficiary. The Plaintiff thereafter filed the captioned Testamentary Petition (“the said Petition”) which was opposed by the Cheema’s and Neelam who filed their respective caveats. It was thus that the said Petition was converted to a Testamentary Suit.

iii. The Plaintiff thereafter filed two Notices of Motion i.e. Notice of Motion No. 209 of 2012 and Notice of Motion No. 23 of 2013 for dismissal of the Caveats filed by the Cheema’s and Neelam respectively. The dismissal of the Caveats filed by the Cheema’s was essentially on the ground that Cheema’s had no caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased. The Cheema’s opposed the Notice of Motion by filing an Affidavit in Reply in which they inter alia contended that a decision as to whether the Cheema’s had any caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased, could only be taken once the Cheema’s had led evidence in the matter. It was thus that this Court vide an Order dated 9th January 2014 dismissed the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion seeking rejection of the Cheema’s Caveat inter alia holding as follows:

“2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 3 on the other hand invited my attention to the averments in affidavit and submits that grounds raised in the affidavit in support of the caveat would require oral evidence and caveat cannot be rejected at this stage…

3. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the defendants in support of caveat, I am of the view that the issue raised in the affidavit in support of the caveat cannot be brushed aside at this stage and caveat cannot be dismissed at this stage and would require oral evidence.

4. For the reasons recorded aforesaid, in my view, there is no substance in the Notice of Motions filed by the plaintiffs for dismissal of caveat of defendant nos. 1 to 4 and thus Notice of Motions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

5. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the correctness of the allegations made in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motions and also affidavit in support of the caveat and all such contentions are kept open.” (emphasis supplied)

3. This Court thereafter vide an Order dated 27th January 2014 framed the following Issues for determination in the Suit viz.

“ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to execute the Will of the deceased in his capacity as the executor of Dr. Kate Patel’s Will?

2. Whether the Will of the deceased dated 15th May, 1986 has been duly executed and attested as per the requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?

3. Whether Dr. Kate Patel in her capacity as the sole executrix of the Will of the deceased dated 15th May, 1986 has manifested any intention to execute the same?

4. Whether the defendant nos. 1 to 3 prove that they have any caveatable interest qua the estate of the deceased?

5. Whether defendant nos. 1 to 3 prove that the Will of the deceased dated 15th