Mr.Ajay Janeshwar Garg v. Samraat K Malhotra And 2 ORS And Sushila B Saklani (Applicant)

79-NMT128-15.DOC SHEPHALI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 128 OF 2015 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 272 OF 2003 Mr. Ajay Janeshwar Garg

...Petitioner

Versus

Samraat K. Malhotra & 2 Ors. and Sushila B.

Saklani

...Respondents

Mr. P. Shinde, i/b B. Singh, for the Applicant.

Mr. B. G. Saraf, i/b Sanjay Mishra, for the Respondents. CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED:

21st June 2016 PC:- 1.

The Motion seeks reliefs in respect of various properties, movable and immovable. Mr. Saraf for the Respondents states that the Motion is not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in Rupali Mehta v Smt. Tina Narinder Sain Mehta, 1 Ramchandra Ganpatrao Hande alias Handege v Vithalrao Hande and Ors., 2 and Manek Dara Sukhadwalla v Shernaz Faroukh Lawyer. 3 In my view, 2006 (6) Bom.C.R. 778 2011 (4) Bom.C.R 326 Appeal (L) No. 7 of 2014 in Notice of Motion No. 138 of 2012 in Testamentary Suit No. 29 of 2012 in Probate Petition No. 341 of 2012, decided on 8th August 2014.

21st June 2016

79-NMT128-15.DOC this is correct. As the Division Bench explains in Hande, the 'subject matter' of a testamentary proceeding is not title to any particular property but is the testamentary instrument in question, or the matter of representation and administration.

2.

Thus, this Notice of Motion is thoroughly misconceived. Liberty to the Applicants to adopt suitable proceedings. All contentions in that behalf are expressly kept open. 3.

The Notice of Motion is disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs.

(G. S. PATEL, J.) 21st June 2016