ANANT S. DAVE, J.

1. This application is preferred by the applicant through her Power of Attorney holder seeking leave to appeal against consent terms dated 23-10-2013 as well as order/judgment and decree dated 23-10-2013 passed by the Court of 15th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No. 640 of 2003.

2. In this application, preferred seeking leave to appeal, it is claimed that applicant is one of the legatees of the properties of Late Smt. Shantadevi Gaekwad, testatrix as per Will dated 18-2-1992 read with Codicil dated 31-3-2002 and Codicil dated 1-4-2002 as well as properties of Smt. Mrunalinidevi Puar (elder sister of the mother of the applicant) as per Will dated 3-9-2012 and also a direct beneficiary of the share of the properties flowing from her mother Smt. Satvashila (Sarlaraje) Gaekwad (opponent No. 10 herein) and this, directly inherits part of the property equal to her share in her capacity as grand-daughter of Late Smt. Shantadevi Gaekwad in terms of the above Will and Codicil.

3. According to the applicant, though consent decree is passed on 23-10-2013, to which the applicant had no knowledge and when Smt. Mrunalinidevi Puar (opponent No.6 herein) passed away in Vadodara on 2-1-2015, a copy of her Will dated 3-9-2012 was provided to her by one of her cousins and going through the said Will dated 3-9-2012, the applicant made herself aware about the fact that the applicant was mentioned as one of the executors of the Will dated 3-9-2012. After due efforts and making an inquiry about the details of movable as well as immovable properties of the subject proceedings, the applicant has taken a conscious decision to file this application seeking leave to prefer appeal against judgment and decree, both dated 23-10-2013.

4. While taking us to factual background and pedigree of Late Smt. Shantadevi Gaekwad, Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants drew our attention to contents of Will dated 18-2-1992 and Codicils dated 31-3-2002 and 1-4-2002, specifically Para 7 of Will dated 18-2-1992 and Clause-4 of Codicil dated 31-3-2002 - Annexures-E and F respectively to the petition and contended that the applicant is aggrieved by consent decree inasmuch as, the applicant is not a signatory and never accorded any consent to the consent terms.

4.1. It is submitted that the manner in which amendments were moved to the plaint on 22-10-2013, viz. Exh. 221, Exh. 218, Exh. 225 and Exh. 229, whereby almost all members of Smt. Shantadevi Gaekwad.family are brought on record, their names appear as parties, either as plaintiffs or defendants and next day on filing of compromise pursis, an order is passed in hurry, would indicate that the applicant is deprived of her legal right as well as legal injury caused to her, and therefore, she is within her right to challenge such decree and as she is not able to challenge it by filing First Appeal as required under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, leave is sought for.

4.2. It is submitted that from Para 7 of the Will executed by Smt. Shantadevi Gaekwad on 18-2-1992, it is clear that the applicant, being a grand-child, was entitled to the share so mentioned therein. The applicant being a grand-child and one of the five grand-daughters, her entitlement was mentioned. Even the manner in which Codicils dated 31-3-2002 and 1-4-2002 were executed, is in realm of doubt, which almost takes away all her legal entitlement accruing out of the Will. Our attention is drawn to contents of consent terms which referred to various movable and immovable properties situated at Vadodara and other places, viz. Mumbai, Delhi, etc. and Clause 7.11, by which it as clarified that the plaintiff was under no obligation to make any contribution for payment to be made to the grand-daughter of Late Smt. Shantadevi Gaekwad, i.e. the applicant under Clau