- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.14 OF 2008 Atul Purushootam Borkar ...Petitioner vs. Mrs.Kumudini Ravindra Amrute and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.Vora i/b. M/s.Tamhane & Co., for Petitioner Mrs.Madhuri Gaikwad, for Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 17TH DECEMBER,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for parties. Perused the petition and the annexures thereto so also the affidavits filed on record. 2. The deceased Purushottam Shantappa Borkar died on 2.6.1993. During his life time he had purchased shares of a co-operative Housing Society bearing distinctive numbers which are set out in - 2 - paragraph (1) of this petition. 3. First respondent is the married daughter of the deceased. Respondent no.2 is the other married daughter and the respondent no.3 is the son of the deceased. 4. Petitioner is also the son of the deceased. 5. This is a dispute between real brothers and sisters. It is stated that probate petition no.553 of 1998 in respect of a Will dated 10.5.1991 was filed and this Court proceeded to grant the probate of the Will on 7.11.2000. However, while not disputing that the citation was duly served, it is alleged that the first Respondent being the sister and the elder brother of the petitioner assured the petitioner that petitioner’s right in the premises will not be affected by acceptance of the citation and, that is how the consent affidavit was filed. However, after the probate was granted of the Will, the petitioner was served with the notice by the elder sister calling upon him to vacate the premises. Subsequently, the sister filed a suit in the City Civil Court being Suit no.1803 of 2006 which is for a - 3 - mandatory injunction and order directing the petitioner herein to remove himself from the premises. That suit is pending. 6. On perusal of the petition so also considering the argument canvassed by Mr.Vora Advocate for the petitioner, it is apparent to me that the dispute is not as much as about probate but the rights, title and interest of the parties in the immovable property in question. Upon perusal of the petition, there is nothing which could termed as a "just cause" so as to revoke grant of probate. Apart from the fact that the probate petition was filed and that was granted in the year 2000, all that is alleged is that the Will was not executed by the father. The father was of advanced age and therefore, the Will has been obtained by fraud and undue influence. It appears to be unnatural. However, nothing has been pointed out to support the above statements and allegations. There is considerable delay in filing this petition for revocation as well. The real cause appears to be the initiation of the proceedings by the elder sister-respondent no.1 against the petitioner for possession. Number of attempts were made to settle - 4 - the matter amicably and various suggestions given by the Court are not found to be acceptable. It is in these circumstances, that I have passed final order on the petition for revocation. 7. For the reasons indicated above and considering that the dispute is about the rights, title and interest in the immovable property, it is not possible to accept the submission of the petitioner and revoke the grant. Miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that all observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding as to whether cause for revocation is made out or not. The observations and the findings do not and will not conclude the issue of right, title and interest of the parties to the subject immovable property. All contentions and pleas in that behalf are kept open. Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)