1 MPT.12/10-TP.500/88 mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MISC. PETITION NO.12 OF 2010 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.500 OF 1988 Sadashiv Tukaram Thakur ...Deceased Neela Yeshwant Thakur ....Petitioner Vs. L.H. Subramoney & Anr. ...Respondents Ms. F.A. Rampurawala i/b. Zenobia S. Irani for Petitioners Mr. Anil Singh with Mr. Kirti K. Nagda for Respondents 1 & 2 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. The above Testamentary Petition was for probate of the last Will and Testament of the deceased Sadashiv Tukaram Thakur. Under the Will the deceased declared that he was the Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and mentioned the names of co-parcerners. The Petitioner herein is one of the co-parcerners. Under the said Will the deceased bequeathed his undivided share in the HUF to his nephew Nitin. 2. Citation was not issued upon the Petitioner because she is not the heir of 2 MPT.12/10-TP.500/88 the deceased. Probate has been granted of the said Will on 22 nd March 1990. 3. This Misc. Petition is filed for revocation of the probate on the ground that the deceased could not have bequeathed his undivided share in the HUF properties under the said Will. The undivided share of the deceased would devolve by survivorship and not by succession, testamentary or intestate. The probate however only declares that the Will was executed by the deceased. The right, title and interest of the co-parceners in the HUF properties would devolve upon them or accrue on them in accordance with the law relating to HUF properties in a Hindu Undivided Family. 4. Consequently, only on that ground this Misc. Petition would not require any order to be passed. 5. I am told that suits for declaration as well as injunction have been filed in the Bombay City Civil Court as well as the Small Causes Court at Bombay with regard to the legal rights of the Petitioners herein. 6. It is clarified that their right, title and interest shall be considered in accordance with law in those suits. 7. Upon such clarification there shall be no order in this Misc. Petition and no order as to costs. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)