: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 TESTAMENTARY TESTAMENTARY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE CIVIL JURISDICTION & INTESTATE CIVIL JURISDICTION & INTESTATE CIVIL JURISDICTION MISC. MISC. MISC. PETITION NO. 50 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 50 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 50 OF 2008 IN IN IN TESTAMENTARY TESTAMENTARY TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 509 OF PETITION NO. 509 OF PETITION NO. 509 OF 2004 2004 2004 Smt. Tulsibai Wd/o. Shankar Warli @ Vaijal & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. Malji Ravji Vaijal. ... Respondent. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Counsel a/w. A. Patki for the Petitioners. Mr. H. Kode a/w. Ms. Gunjan Shah i/b. S.A. Sawant for the Respondent. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 06TH 06TH 06TH FEBRUARY 2009. FEBRUARY 2009. FEBRUARY 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard both sides. 2. On the last occasion a statement was recorded that the Petitioner will file an additional affidavit and produce relevant documents to support the family tree and their locus. Accordingly, an additional affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner in which reliance is placed on an order passed by the sub-Divisional Officer, Bombay Suburban District, dated 26th November 2001 and the enquiry held pursuant thereto. Reliance is also placed upon the report which has been forwarded pursuant to this enquiry and the observations and contents of the said report. Further, reliance is placed on the 7 x 12 extracts and the entries made therein. The Ration Card is also relied upon. :2: 3. Pertinently, all documents annexed to the additional affidavit are copies. Mr. Patki states that the originals are in possession of the Petitioners. 4. My attention is invited by Mr. Kode to an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench was deciding a Writ Petition and a Review Petition challenging the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division has examined the claim of the very Petitioner No.1 before me and made observations doubting her status as a wife of Shankar Vaijal. This Shankar was the son of the deceased Janya in respect of whose estate the Letters of Administration have been granted. 5. The Division Bench has observed that the claim of the Petitioner No.1 Tulsibai will have to be proved by her by approaching Civil Court. 6. Mr. Patki would urge that the additional affidavit proves the case of the Petitioners that they have a caveatable interest and that they are entitled to the estate of the deceased Janya. That they should have been given adequate notice and permitted to participate in the proceedings. :3: 7. In my view, considering the observations of the Division Bench and the pleas raised in the additional affidavit, the Petitioners will have to establish their status that the First Petitioner is the wife of the deceased Shankar and that the case set up is not disputed or denied by the Respondents. 8. My attention was invited to a statement which was made by the Respondents wherein they state before the Talathi that Shankar Janya is their cousin and he had married the First Petitioner (second marriage). 9. After perusing the additional affidavit and the annexures thereto, in my view, it would not be proper to undertake an enquiry into the disputed questions with regard to the legal status of the First Petitioner. Having perused the material produced including the order of the Division Bench, I am of the view that before this Court considers the request of the Petitioners to revoke the grant, they must be given an opportunity to establish the case set out in this Petition and in the additional affidavit. Admittedly, that claim cannot be investigated and adjudicated upon in the limited jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Considering the above, it would be fair, just and proper to dispose off this Petition with liberty to the Petitioners to apply for Revocation of the grant and the :4: reliefs in this Petition afresh after the claim with regard to their status is established and proved. However, with a view to enable them to do so, it is directed that the Respondent shall not give effect to or act upon the grant in his favour for a period of two months from today. Merely because this liberty is granted and the temporary protection is given does not mean that the Court has accepted the case of the Petitioners. This Court has also not by these directions held that the Respondent should not be given any opportunity to disprove the case of the Petitioner. All pleas and contentions of either side in this behalf are kept open. It is only to enable the Petitioners to establish and prove their claim before an appropriate forum that this order and protection is granted. Needless to state that as and when the Petitioner approach the Competent Legal Forum/Court, they would be at liberty to apply for such interim orders or the continuation of the interim protection of this Court for such further period as is necessary and further needless to state that such an application will be decided by the Civil Court/Competent Forum on its own merits and in accordance with law after hearing both sides. 11. Petition disposed off. No costs. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)