The Bombay High Court dismissed an application filed by a claimant seeking impleadment as a legal heir in a petition for Letters of Administration regarding the estate of Jagjivandas Shamji Suchak, who died intestate. The court ruled that the applicant, being the grandson of a predeceased brother of the deceased, did not qualify as a Class II heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Consequently, the applicant lacked caveatable interest, and his claim to be impleaded was rejected.

1. Introduction:

The case involves an application filed by an individual claiming to be a legal heir of the deceased, Jagjivandas Shamji Suchak. The applicant sought to be impleaded as a party respondent in a petition for Letters of Administration and requested the issuance of a citation in his favor.

2. Background:

• The deceased, Jagjivandas Shamji Suchak, passed away on May 1, 2021, in Mumbai, leaving behind no will.
• The petitioner, Induben Jethalal Nagrecha, applied for Letters of Administration, asserting that the deceased had no surviving Class I heirs and only Class II heirs, including herself.

3. The Applicant’s Claim:

• The applicant asserted that he was the son of Chandrakant Suchak, a predeceased son of the deceased’s brother, Purshotam Suchak, and thus had a legal right to the deceased’s estate.
• The applicant argued that the petitioner had suppressed material facts by not including him as a legal heir in the testamentary petition.

4. Petitioner’s Defense:

• The petitioner argued that the children of predeceased sons of the deceased’s siblings fall outside the category of Class II heirs as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• The petitioner emphasized that the applicant's status as a legal heir in a rent control suit did not entitle him to succeed in the estate of the deceased.

5. Court’s Analysis:

• The court examined whether the applicant had a caveatable interest, which is required to be heard in the testamentary petition.
• Relying on the principles established in the Supreme Court's decision in Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, the court reiterated that only those with a direct claim to the estate can maintain a caveat.

6. Judgment:

• The court ruled that the applicant, being the grandson of a predeceased son of the deceased’s brother, does not qualify as a Class II heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
• The applicant’s lack of caveatable interest was affirmed, and his application for impleadment in the testamentary petition was dismissed.

7. Conclusion:

The court's decision underscores the importance of the classification of heirs under the Hindu Succession Act and reinforces the limitations on who may challenge or participate in testamentary proceedings.