IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 158 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 45 OF 2008 IN PETITION NO. 729 OF 2007. Mandakini Surendra Parelkar @ Paralkar & Ors. ..... ..... ...Plaintiffs V/s Smt.Aruna Suryakant Parelkar @ Parelkar & Ors. ..... ...Defendants Mr.Satish Shetye with Ms.Smita Mhatre, Adv. for the plaintiffs Mr.Sanjay Udeshi i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co., Adv. for the defendants 2 to 6. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 8th July, 2009. PC: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. The notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiffs for discharge of the caveat. The caveator by filing affidavit in support of caveat has disputed the genuineness of the will and its voluntary execution by the deceased. 2. The petition is filed for obtaining letters of administration with will annexed. Gajanand is the deceased who has purportedly executed the will. Gajanand left behind four sons and three daughters. Out of four sons three have expired whereas one is alive. The present petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the wives of two of the deceased sons of the testator whereas petitioner No.3 is one of the surviving daughters. Respondent No.1-Arvind is the son of testator whereas respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are legal heirs of one of the deceased 1 sons of testator by name Suryakant. Chart indicating the family tree has been placed on record. It is obvious that the respondents are heir apparent to the estate of the deceased-testator Gajanand. The respondents are class I heirs. Being the legal heirs respondents would ordinarily be presumed to have caveatable interest and thus right to observe the proceedings. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that Suryakant during his life time had entered into settlement where under he received some property and had relinquished his right in the estate of the deceased forming part of will. The jurisdiction of the testamentary court is very limited and the same is only to determine whether the will is genuine or otherwise. Questions of title and ownership which are dependent upon extraneous factors such as settlement or otherwise need to be addressed before appropriate Court. The defendants are also claiming the estate of the deceased without challenging the title of the deceased and being heirs of the deceased under the personal law governing them they have caveatable interest. In that view of the matter notice of motion stands dismissed. Hearing is expedited. 30.6.2009. 2