1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION NMT/48/2009 IN TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.11 OF 2009 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.976 OF 2008 Mr.Menino Francisco Gregory Farnandes ...Plaintiff. Vs. Mr.Thomas Anthony Fernandes & ors. ...Defendants Mr.R.R.Thumbre for the Plaintiff. Mr.A.J.Jadhav i/b. Sara & Co. for the Defendants. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 8th September, 2009. P.C.- 1 The original petitioner/plaintiff has taken out this motion to cancel and reject the caveat dated 3.2.2009 filed by the caveator/defendant. 2 The Petition is for Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Mr.Roquesinho Fernandes. The plaintiff is son of the deceased. Defendant no.1 is another son and defendants 2 and 3 are daughters of the deceased. 3 As per the submission of the petitioner, there are no substantial and 2 specific objections to the Will. On the contrary, they are relying on some other Will/Last will which the petitioner is denying. This itself, in my view, is sufficient reason to show that the defendants have a caveatable interest in the matter. Apart from this, being son and daughters, they are even otherwise entitled at least to contest the petition filed by one of the son. 4 The Supreme Court in G. Gopal vs. C. Baskar and others, (2008) 10 SCC 489, has expressed that even a slightest caveatable interest is sufficient to consider the objection in accordance with law. 5 In view of above, I see there is no merit in this motion. The motion as filed by the plaintiff is rejected. No costs. 6 The parties are still at liberty to settle the matter if they so desire. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)