1 JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 128 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 105 OF 1998 IN PETITION NO. 16 OF 1996 Vaibhav D. Patel. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Wavel Joseph Pereira & Ors. ... Defendants. And Viren Pravin Choksey. ... Caveator. Mrs. Nutan S. Moily for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 11th JUNE 2010. P.C. :- Affidavit of service is filed. Caveator is served. No affidavit in reply is filed. For the purposes of probate of the Will purported to have been executed by late Mr. L.V. Pereira Testamentary Petition came to be filed being Petition No.16 of 2 1996. The same got converted into Testamentary Suit No.105 of 1998 in the course of proceedings and the same is pending. Mr. Viren Pravin Choksey, who is shown as a Caveator in the present Motion has filed caveat dated 29th January 2009 in this Court is pending. 2. The Plaintiff herein has filed this Notice of Motion seeking rejection of the Caveat. I have heard learned Advocate for the Plaintiff. Affidavit in reply is not filed by the Caveator. Nobody is appearing on behalf of the Defendants as it appears that they are not interested in attending to the matter. 3. The caveator filed the caveat by contending that Mr. Wavel, Defendant No.1 alongwith 7 others had entered into an agreement for development with the Caveator in regard to the property which has been a subject matter of the Will purported to have been executed by the deceased Leo Victor Pereira. According to the Caveator the Will is forged and fabricated and that if the Will is proved to be forged and fabricated, that would affect the rights of the caveator. 3 4. I have considered the text of the caveat as also heard arguments advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff had relied upon the Judgment in the case of Notice of Motion No. 134 of 2008 in Testamentary Petition No.667 of 2008 dated 16th January 2009 (Sardar Surinder Singh Gyani V/s. Bansilal N. Matta) and contended that for the purposes of considering the caveat, the caveator must show a caveatable interest. She had drawn my attention to the portion of Judgment where the Judgment says that the person filing caveat must be next of kin or heirs of the deceased. 5. Having perused the text of the affidavit in support of the caveat, it is noticed that the caveator is not a heir of the deceased and he is no way concerned with the deceased as relative. The caveator has filed this caveat on account of agreement dated 15th April 2005 purported to have been entered into by him alongwith Defendant No.1. He claims that on account of agreement with one of the Defendants he has right to oppose the Petition for Probate. Considering the 4 affidavit in support of caveat it may at the most go to show that the caveator has some interest as a developer. That would not enable the caveator to object to Will as he is not at all concerned as a heir. 6. In my view, in a peculiar situation like this, the caveator has not been able to show caveatable interest in the dispute relating to Will purported to have been executed by late Mr. Leo Victor Pereira. 7. In view of this, the Caveat is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)