- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. jmi TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.58 OF 2002 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.346 OF 2002. Vrinda Mihir Ghosh. ..Plaintiff. vs. Vijaya Dinesh Urje & Ors. ..Caveators/ Defendants. .... Mr.J.B. Patel, for Plaintiff. Mr.Nandu Pawar, for Defendants. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 : 13TH APRIL, 2009 : 13TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This petition is filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for grant of probate to the petitioner having effect through out the State of Maharashtra. The probate sought is in respect of the Will of the deceased Mr.Ramesh Vithal Samsi, who expired on 26th March 2002 leaving his last Will and testament dated 14th December 1997. 2. After the petition was filed, a caveat is filed by the defendants i.e. the brothers/sisters of the petitioner. All the caveators have filed identical affidavits and their main contention in the affidavits in support of the Caveats is that the plaintiff/petitioner has not set forth the garage in schedule-1 of the properties. It is also contended by - 2 - the caveators that the garage did not belong to the deceased and the owner of the said garage was their mother Mrs.Anjali Ramesh Samsi. The second main contention of the caveators is that the flat namely Item no.1 in the schedule is not owned by the deceased but the same was owned by their mother Mrs.Anjali Ramesh Samsi, who died intestate on 20th April 1992. It is therefore, contended that the deceased was not entitled to bequeath the said assets by and under his Will, and that no probate be granted to the plaintiff/petitioner as sought in the suit/petition. 3. The grievance of the caveators namely that the gargage and the flat are not the properties owned by the deceased, cannot be decided by this Court because it is well established that it is not for the Testamentary Court to decide the disputes pertaining to the title of properties which are the subject matter of a Will. 4. It is not the case of the defendants that the Will executed by the deceased is not validly executed as per the provisions of law or that the said Will was executed by the deceased under coercion or undue influence. 5. In view thereof, no case is made out by the defendants as to why probate in respect the deceased Ramesh Samsi should not be granted to the petitioner in - 3 - respect of the Will dated 26th March 2002 of the deceased. In view thereof, the caveats filed by the defendants are dismissed, and I pass the following order :- (1) The probate in respect of the Will of the deceased Ramesh Vithal Samsi dated 26th March 2002 be granted to the petitioner having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra. (2) The testamentary suit/petition stands disposed of with no orders as to costs. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]