1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION MISC.PETITION NO.3 OF 2009 IN PETITION NO.878 OF 2006 Devika Bhupendra Doshi @ Mrs.Devika Bhupendra Doshi @ Devika B. Doshi .. Deceased Sheetal Nimesh Doshi .. Petitioner versus Bhupendra Manilal Doshi .. Respondent Mr.Jayesh Bhatt for the petitionerr. Mr.J.V.Parmar for the respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 11th December 2009. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The prayer in this petition is for revocation of the probate granted on 12th December 2006 in favour of the respondent in respect of alleged Will dated 21st June 1998 executed by the deceased mother-in-law of the petitioner. The respondent is the father-in-law of the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the probate has been obtained by the respondent by playing fraud upon the Court. He submitted that in various matrimonial proceedings pending 2 between the petitioner and her husband, at no stage the Will in respect of which probate has been granted was set up. He submitted that a forged and fabricated Will has been set up with a view to dispossess the petitioner from her matrimonial home. He submitted that on the basis of order granting probate which is fraudulently obtained, the respondent has filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner and as a result of grant of probate, the concerned Court is bound to pass an order of eviction against the petitioner. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jang Singh Vs. Brij Lal & Ors (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1631). He submitted that as the mistake on the part of this Court of granting the probate is pointed out, it is obligation of this Court to correct the mistake and set aside the said order. He, therefore, submitted that though the petitioner may not have caveatable interest, this petition will have to be entertained and the mistake committed by this Court will have to be corrected. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. The probate granted in favour of the respondent is in respect of the alleged last Will of the mother- in-law of the petitioner. As stated earlier, the respondent is her father-in-law. Even assuming that there is no Will executed by the deceased mother-in- law, admittedly under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the petitioner will not get any share in the estate allegedly held by the her mother-in-law. Therefore, the petitioner had no caveatable interest even to file a caveat in the probate proceedings. In view of this factual aspect, the 3 law laid down by this Court in the case of Rajiv Ramprasad Gupta Vs. Rustom Sam Boyce [2003 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal 273] will be applicable and this petition will have to be dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge grant of probate in favour of the respondent. 4. It is settled law that while granting probate or letters of administration, this Court cannot decide the issue of title to the property which is allegedly held by the deceased and notwithstanding the grant of probate, the issue of title always remains open which can be agitated by the parties by filing appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. If the petitioner is claiming that one of the properties which is subject matter of the alleged Will is her matrimonial home, nothing prevents the petitioner from establishing her rights in respect of the said property as her matrimonial home. Grant of probate cannot be construed as any decision on the issue of title of the property allegedly held by the deceased testator. 5. Subject to what is observed above, misc.petition is dismissed. (A.S.OKA,J)