: 1 : 46-11-chs= USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 46 OF 2011 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 28 OF 1999 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 116 OF 1999 Harsh Rajnikant Kilachand .. Plaintiff v/s. Ramila Rajnikant Kilachand .. Defendant ......... Mr. Gautam Patel i/b Tyabji Dayabhai for the plaintiff Mr. Karl Tamboly, Ms. Natasha Bopaiah i/b Bharucha & Partners for the defendant ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 30th AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1. The plaintiff-original petitioner did file Testamentary Petition No.116 of 1999 to seek probate in respect of Will purported to have been executed by the deceased Rajnikant A. Kilachand on 22 nd March, 1997. Since the present defendant caveatrix happened to be the heir of said Rajnikant, the plaintiff cited the present caveatrix as an heir in the body of the petition. : 2 : 46-11-chs= Consequently, citation was served upon the caveatrix. The caveatrix did file caveat dated 26 th March, 1999 has also filed affidavit in support of the caveat dated 26 th March, 1999. Thereafter, this chamber summons has been taken out by the plaintiff for setting aside the caveat. 2. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides on the question of considering the relief sought in the chamber summons. I have also perused affidavit in reply of the caveat dated 26 th March, 1999 filed by the caveatrix. A perusal of the said caveat indicates that the caveatrix has not put up her challenge with reference to Will dated 27 th March, 1997. The caveatrix has in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the caveat recorded as many as 7 objections for grant of probate. I have perused each and every objection and I am inclined to observe that the said objections do not touch the merit of the Testamentary Petition namely the various points as regards the Will said to have been executed on 22 nd March, 1999. All the objections raised in the affidavit in support of the caveat are in the nature of objections relating to the title of the property or the allegations as regards conduct of the plaintiff. In my view, those objections by themselves cannot constitute a ground for opposing the petition filed by the plaintiff. Hence, the caveatrix has not been able to : 3 : 46-11-chs= make out the ground to support her caveat. Consequently, the caveat has to be dismissed. 3. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the following order is passed to dispose of this chamber summons. ORDER (i) Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii) Apart from the caveatrix, there is one person by name Amrish Kilachand is heir. He has not filed any caveat. Hence, on account of this order Petition ceases to be a contested petition. Hence, Testamentary Suit No.28 of 1999 stands disposed of in view of disposal of the caveat with no order as to costs. (iii) Office to process Testamentary Petition No.116 of 1999 in accordance with the provisions of law. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)