1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.75 OF 2008 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.55 OF 2007 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.378 OF 2007 Ramvilas Vishwanath Gupta .. Petitioner/ Plaintiff Versus Rama Sushil Gupta & Ors. .. Defendants/Caveator Mr.B.Unnikrishnan for plaintiff Mr.Sushil Gupta representative of Caveator present. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5th August 2009. P.C.: 1] This is a notice of motion moved by the petitioner/ plaintiff for dismissal of the caveat. 2] In the affidavit in support, it is stated that the caveat has been filed with a view to delay the proceedings. In the affidavit in support, it is also stated that the petitioner/ plaintiff has entered into gratuitous licence 2 dated 18th January 2003 with his son in law and he has never handed over or transferred the suit premises in favour of husband of Caveator No. 1. The gratuitous licence does not create any right in the property. Accordingly it is not registered. The caveators have no right, title in the suit premises. Reference is made to Special Civil Suit No.771 of 2006 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane for injunction. 3] Upon a query from the Court as to how the statement made in para 3(vii) of the affidavit in support could be any ground for dismissal of the Caveat. My attention is invited to the caveat and the affidavit in support of Mr.Unnikrishnan. He urged that apart from this issue, nothing has been stated in the caveat which would enable caveators to contest the proceedings. 4] I am afraid that it would not a proper reading of the affidavit in support. That affidavit must be perused as a whole and if so perused, it is clear that caveators have disclosed caveatable interest inasmuch as it is not disputed by the petitioner/ plaintiff that the deceased was the mother of the caveators. Further, there is a dispute raised with regard to the will 3 in the affidavit in support of the caveat and on several grounds, it is stated that the will is not valid and genuine. All these matters may be decided at the trial and it is not possible to dismiss the caveat summarily, all the more when dismissal of only one caveat is sought. 5] In the result, the notice of motion fails and accordingly dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)