IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Will – A legatee claiming under Will cannot, at the same time, question its validity – Claim must be either by way of inheritance or by way of an interest in estate itself.
(2) Nominee being a trustee has no locus to file or maintain a caveat in Testamentary Proceedings – Nominee/trustee has no right to object to heirs inheriting either under Will or by intestate succession.

JUDGMENT

By the present Application, the Applicant inter alia seeks dismissal of the Caveat filed by the Caveatrix in the Petition. The Petition itself seeks grant of Letters of Administration of the Joint Will and Testament dated 4th November 2018 (Exh.B Page 21 to the Petition) and Joint Codicil dated 31st May 2019 (Exh.B1 Page 33 to the Petition) of the deceased, who were the adoptive parents of the Applicant-Petitioner.

Brief Facts:

2. The Applicant is the duly adopted daughter of Mr. Ravi Parthasarathy and Dr. (Mrs.) Vishpala Parthasarathy (hereinafter jointly referred to as “the said deceased”). The Order of Adoption is annexed at Exh. A, Page 19 to the Interim Application. They expired on 27th April 2022 and 6th November 2023 respectively. The Joint Will dated 4th November 2018 and a Joint Codicil thereto dated 31st May 2019 executed by them are hereinafter collectively referred to as “the said Joint Will”. The Applicant is the sole surviving Class I legal heir and next of kin of the said deceased, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

3. The Applicant was constrained to file the Petition seeking grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the said Joint Will of the said deceased because the named executors under the said Joint Will renounced their office as Executors and Trustees of the said Joint Will their communications dated 13th December 2022 (Exh.C1 Page 63 to the Petition), dated 20th September 2024 (Exh.C2 Page 65 to the Petition), dated 21st September 2024 (Exh.C3 Page 66 to the Petition),

4. The Caveatrix claims to be the maternal cousin of the deceased, Dr. (Mrs.) Vishpala Parthasarathy. She filed her caveat in the present Petition on 10th June 2025, seeking to “be heard” in the matter. Her caveat rests on two grounds: (i) nomination in respect of the flat of Dr. Vishpala Parthasarthy, which was expressly excluded from the said Joint Will; and (ii) a bequest of 30 ¹ lakhs made to her under the said Joint Will.

5. By this Interim Application the Applicant seeks dismissal of the Caveat, on two grounds: (i) the Caveatrix has not challenged the genuineness, existence or validity of the said Joint Will, and (ii) her entire claim is founded only upon an alleged nomination, which does not confer any ownership rights in favour of the nominee.

Submissions on behalf of the Applicant –

The Caveatrix has no caveatable Interest

6. Mr Lohia, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submits that the Caveatrix does not have any caveatable interest in respect of the said Joint Will, and on this ground alone, the Caveat is liable to be dismissed. He submits that the right to maintain a caveat against the grant of probate or letters of administration is not available to every person who merely asserts a general or speculative interest in the estate of the deceased. Only a person whose claims arise through a recognized line of succession, and whose rights are likely to be defeated by the grant of a probate or letters of administration, can be said to possess a caveatable interest.

7. In the present case, admittedly, the Applicant, being the daughter of the said deceased is a Class I legal heir of the said deceased. The Caveatrix on the other hand claims to be the maternal cousin of the deceased Dr. (Mrs.) Vishpala Parthasarathy. Therefore, even if the present petition was to fail, the Caveatrix could not, in any circumstance, succeed to any part of the estate of the deceased. This, by itself, demonstrates that the Caveatrix has no caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased whatsoever.

8. Reliance is placed on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court:

a. Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, (2008) 4 SCC 300

85. We may, by way of example notice that a testator might have entered into an agreement of sale entitling the vendee to file a suit for specific performance of contract. On the basis thereof, however, a caveatable interest is not created, as such an agreement wo