1 REV.PTN.1.2010-TS.42.07-TP.80.07.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.1 OF 2010 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.42 OF 2007 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 80 OF 2007 Radheshyam Chhotelal Shah Constituted Attorney for Gaurav Srikalyan ...Petitioner (Orig. Plaintiff) Vs. Suresh Krishnaji Salkade ...Respondent (Orig.Defendant) Ms. Deepti Mistry i/b. Vaibhav Mehta & Associates for Petitioner Mr. Raj Patel i/b. K.V. Aiyar & Associates for Respondent CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 21ST APRIL, 2011 P.C. : 1. This Review Petition is filed for reconsidering the admissibility of the documents, which have been considered on 27 th September 2010 by this Court. Several of Plaintiff’s/Petitioner’s documents have been marked exhibits upon seeing their relevancy and several of documents are not have been marked on the ground that they are not relevant. All, but one of these documents are still shown to be irrelevant to the issues in the suit. They are re-clarified as follows: 1. Copy of the affidavit filed in support of the Petition cannot become a document or an affidavit in the trial. It cannot be 2 REV.PTN.1.2010-TS.42.07-TP.80.07.sxw marked as an exhibit. Hence the copy of the affidavit of the attesting witness cannot be marked any exhibit. 2. There have been certain litigations between the parties including the mother of the Testatrix. Certain affidavits filed in the earlier proceedings have been marked Exhibit-E(colly). 3. The Will of the mother of the Testatrix is not shown to be relevant except that a part of her estate devolves upon the Testatrix and hence became the estate of the Testatrix. In this suit only the letters of administration with the Will annexed are required to be considered and not the title of the Testatrix. Hence the registered Will of her mother is not relevant and is once again refused to be marked exhibit. 4. Similar is the case of the registered release deed of the brother who released certain properties, which became the estate of the deceased. The suit is not to consider the title of the deceased and the extent of the estate of the deceased. Hence once again that document is not marked as it is irrelevant to the issues in this suit. It may be relevant in a title suit which the parties may file after obtaining letters of administration. 5. Several rent receipts have been relied upon by the Plaintiff. This is to show that the Testatrix managed her property, was fit and signed the documents. Such rent receipts are required to be of the period around the execution of the Will and the Testament of 2006. The rent receipt dated 1 st June 2006 is 3 REV.PTN.1.2010-TS.42.07-TP.80.07.sxw marked Exhibit-J as it will show the state of mind of the testatrix at around that period. The other earlier rent receipts are of several years prior to the execution of the Will. Consequently, they are not marked as not relevant. They are once again refused to be marked for the same reason. 2. It may be mentioned that the reason for seeing that the documents are irrelevant are also shown in the aforesaid order dated 27 th September 2010. There is no case for review made out in respect of these documents. 3. Only the death certificate of the attesting witness which is issued by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation has not been marked as it was seen to be a copy. It is stated to be the original certificate issued by the Corporation. Hence the death certificate of the attesting witness Balkrishna Tukaram Bhisikar who expired on 9 th June 2009 is now marked Exhibit-K. No further change in order dated 27 th September 2010 is required. 4. Further the affidavit of the Plaintiff was sought to be filed on 21 st March 2011. That affidavit could not be filed since the Petition was not before the Court on that date. The affidavit is returned to the Plaintiff to be filed in the suit when the suit reaches hearing. 5. Review petition is disposed off accordingly. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)