- Case
- HOSHANG JEHANGIR KHAN v. KHUSHROO BEHRAMSHAW MOGAL (Bombay High Court, 05-01-2026)
- Law
- Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Indian Succession Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Facts: Hoshang Jehangir Khan and others, as executors of the deceased Hilla Homi Dady, filed a testamentary petition seeking probate of her will. Khushroo Behramshaw Mogal lodged a caveat, claiming to be a beneficiary under a later will. The applicants filed an interim application seeking dismissal of the caveat, alleging the caveator's will was fabricated and that he had no caveatable interest. The applicants argued that the caveator was not a legal heir or relative, and his claim of being "just like my son" to the deceased was false. They also pointed to the caveator's delay in filing the caveat and his questionable conduct.
Procedural Posture: This is an interim application (IA No. 1808 of 2024) within a testamentary petition (No. 3908 of 2023) before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The applicants sought dismissal of the caveat filed by the respondent.
Issue: Should the caveat filed by Khushroo Behramshaw Mogal be dismissed, thereby allowing the testamentary petition of Hoshang Jehangir Khan and others to proceed without his challenge?
Holding: Yes, the interim application to dismiss the caveat is allowed.
Reasoning: The Court found the caveator's case unconvincing for several reasons. The caveator delayed filing the caveat for over nine months after the deceased's death without explanation. He was not a legal heir or relative and lacked a caveatable interest. The signature on the alleged will propounded by the caveator differed significantly from the deceased's known signatures. The witnesses to the caveator's will were unknown strangers, and their signatures appeared on a separate page. The court also considered the caveator's prior conduct, including allegations of fabricating documents and extorting money. The court concluded that the caveator's will was likely fabricated and that he was attempting to usurp the deceased's estate. The Court also noted the possibility of collusion between the Caveator and someone within the Court's Testamentary Department, directing an internal probe.
