: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1466 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1466 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1466 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT NO.485 OF 1992 SUIT NO.485 OF 1992 SUIT NO.485 OF 1992 Pramodini Moreshwar Navalkar & Anr. .. Plaintiffs. Versus Vinayak P. Navalkar & Ors. .. Defendants. Mr.H.S.S.Murthy for the plaintiffs and applicants in notice of motion. Mr.M.W.Padgaonkar for defendant No.1. Mr.R.V.Talasikar for defendant Nos.3 and 4. Mr.D’Souza for the applicant in chamber summons. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 17th October, 2008. DATE : 17th October, 2008. DATE : 17th October, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Original defendant No.2 has expired and present applicant claims that said original defendant No.2 Smt.Padma Pratapchandra Navalkar executed the Will on : 2 : 16.6.1996 and by that Will, undivided share of Smt.Padma Pratapchandra Navalkar in the suit property is bequeathed to the applicant. This chamber summons is taken for being joined as party defendant on the strength of the said bequest, as according to the applicant, the applicant has a substantive interest in the suit property. 2. Learned Advocate Mr.Murthy appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs contend that the Will is not genuine and that Smt. Padma defendant No.2 had no authority to dispose of the suit property by Will and, therefore, the present applicant should not be joined as a party defendant. 3. After having considered the rival contentions, I am inclined to observe that if the present applicant claims to be a legatee and that the applicant has some share in the suit property on the strength of the Will, as a result of such a claim put before the court through the Will purported to have been executed by Smt. Padma defendant No.2, the applicant will have to be joined as a party defendant as the applicant is interested in contesting the suit. : 3 : 4. In the midst of arguments, learned Advocate Mr.D’Souza had undertaken to this court upon instructions from the applicant that the applicant shall file appropriate proceedings to obtain letters of administration with the copy of the Will annexed on which the applicant is relying on or before 30.4.2009. This undertaking given by the applicant is one more reason why the applicant is required to be joined as a party defendant. 5. It is clarified that merely because the applicant is joined as a party defendant, this court has not observed that the Will purported to have been executed by Smt.Padma is a genuine. 6. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I am inclined to allow the chamber summons and hence the order:- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R i) Chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). ii) The plaintiff is directed to carry out : 4 : amendment in terms of the chamber summons on or before 17.11.2008 and serve upon the applicant to be joined as newly added defendant, amended copy of the plaint on or before 27.11.2008. The plaintiffs may serve the copy upon the Advocate for the applicant also. Undertaking given by learned Advocate Mr.D’Souza referred to above is accepted. iii) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.)