1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 10 OF 2003 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.907 OF 1998. Mrs. Meena Dhirajlal Doshi. ..Plaintiff/Petitioner. vs. Mr. Arun Ratilal Doshi. ..Caveator. .... Mr. R.A. Shaikh, i/b. Ms. R.D. Tanna, for Plaintiff. None for the Caveator. .... CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 23RD APRIL, 2009. P.C. This petition is filed by the petitioner for grant of letters of administration to her with the Will annexed. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the deceased Kusumgauri Ratilal Doshi, who expired on 2 nd May 1998. The deceased at the time of her death left her last Will and Testament dated 6 th April 1998. Under the said Will, the deceased has not appointed any executor. 2. At the time of her death, the deceased left as heirs and next of kin according to the Hindu Succession Act, the following 2 persons :- (a) Arunkumar Ratilal Doshi – Son of the deceased. (b) Dhirajlal Ratilal Doshi – Son of the deceased. (c) Kumudben J. Mehta, Daughter of the deceased. (d) Yashwant Ratilal Doshi – Son of the deceased. 3. Citations were served on the aforesaid heirs and a caveat was filed by Arunkumar Ratilal Doshi. Separate Vakalatnamas dated 29 th January 2003 were filed by Advocate Harshad Trivedi, for Yashwant Ratilal Doshi and Kumudben J. Mehta. However, no affidavits opposing the petition were filed by Yashwant Ratilal Doshi or Kumudben J. Mehta. 4. Shri Dhirajlal Ratilal Doshi has filed his affidavit dated 28 th January 2003 wherein he has recorded his no objection and has given his full consent to the effect that the letters of administration be granted to the petitioner. The actual opposition to the petition was therefore only by Arun Ratilal Doshi, the defendant or caveator to the suit. 5. On 16 th April 2009, Mr. Arun Ratilal Doshi appeared 3 before this Court and submitted that he is not interested in pursuing the caveat filed by him in the suit and that he was desirous of withdrawing the suit. Accordingly, he was allowed to withdraw the caveat and the suit was adjourned to 23 rd April 2009. Though the petitioner was not required to give any notice to the said Yashwant Ratilal Doshi and Kumudben J. Mehta, the learned Advocate for the petitioner issued notices to them and has filed affidavit of service of the Special Bailiff to the Sheriff of Mumbai and Managing Clerk, dated 22 nd April 2009, which is taken on record. Though it was not necessary for the petitioner to lead any evidence since there was no opposition to the petition, the petitioner and the attesting witness to the Will Mr. Jaypal Bhalchandra Sunkersett led their evidence i.e. examination-in-chief to which obviously there was no cross- examination. 6. In view thereof, there exists no opposition to the Testamentary Suit No.10 of 2003. The suit is therefore, decreed and the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner for issuing letters of 4 administration with Will annexed in respect of the Will dated 6 th April 1998 of the deceased is granted. 7. In view thereof, Testamentary Suit no.10 of 2003 in Testamentary Petition No.907 of 1998 stands disposed of with no order as to costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]