IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.128 OF 2007 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 52 OF 2007 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 580 OF 2007 Dattakumar P. Kulkarni ......... Plaintiff versus Girish I. Dewoolkar & ors........Defendants. Mr. D.G. Aras i/b Aras & Co. adv. For the Plaintiff/petitioner Ms. A.V. Malvankar adv. For the Defendants/respondents. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 7th July, 2009. P. C.: 1. This Notice of Motion is taken up by the Plaintiff/petitioner for discharge of the caveat by contending that there is no caveatable interest in the Caveators to maintain the caveat and that the Caveators have disputed the title of the deceased to the estate. One Shobha Dewoolkar, the deceased, has purportedly executed a Will where under the beneficiary and the executor is her real brother and sister. The subject matter is the flat. The flat was standing in the name of her husband, during his life time and has been transferred in the name of the deceased after the death of her husband. As the property has come from the husband of the deceased, the heirs of the husband would be succeeding to the said property in the absence of a will or testament. Having regard to the provisions of section 15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act the property would devolve upon the heirs of the husband and thus the Caveators being the heirs of the husband of the deceased, would be entitled to claim the property in the event of an intestate succession. In that view of the matter, I have no iota of doubt that the Caveators have a caveatable interest. 2. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff/petitioner tried to point out from the affidavit filed in support of the Caveat that the Caveators have claimed the property as an ancestral property and have also disputed power of disposition of the deceased. If the affidavit is read in proper perspective it cannot be said that the Caveators have denied the title of the deceased to the estate. 3. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Krishna Kumar Birla’s case, I hold that the Caveator have caveatable interest and hence Motion stands dismissed. This petition be heard along with the Testamentary Petition No. 704/07. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)