Dismissed

Mariamma Thomas and Anr. v. T.M. Abraham and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Apr 2016RTP/1/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Testamentary & Intestate Jurisdiction dismissed a review petition seeking letters of administration with will annexed. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction as the testator, death, will execution, and properties were outside Mumbai, applying Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed.

Mariamma Thomas and Anr. Vs T.M. Abraham and 3 Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

912-RTP1-16.DOC

¶2

JSN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY & INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶4

REVIEW PETITION NO. 1 OF 2016

¶5

IN

¶6

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 59 OF 2014

¶7

Mariamma Thomas & Anr.…Petitioners
Versus
T.M. Abraham & 3 Others...Defendants

¶8

...Defendants

¶9

Mr. Jacob Thomas, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Tejas Vora, Amicus Curae, is present.

¶10

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 5th April 2016

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1.It is only because the Review Petitioner appears in person
that I have shown him some additional latitude.

¶13

2.On the earlier occasion, at my request, Mr. Vora, learned
Advocate, agreed to assist the Court in this Review Petition on the
limited question of ascertaining whether this Court could possibly
be said to have jurisdiction to entertain the Petition for Letters of
Administration with Will Annexed.

¶14

3.Mr. Vora has prepared written submissions. He tenders
these. I have gone through them. They are comprehensive,

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

912-RTP1-16.DOC

¶17

meticulous, fair, balanced and just. In my view, by any measure, Mr.
Vora’s assistance is exceptional and well above and beyond the call
of duty. I must record my appreciation for Mr. Vora’s assistance in
this matter. I am taking his submissions on record. They are marked
“X” for identification.

¶18

4.On a very close reading of the papers and a careful analysis of
the issues, Mr. Vora has submitted that it is impossible to see how
this Court in its testamentary jurisdiction could possibly entertain
this Petition. Nothing relevant to the testamentary jurisdiction has
taken place or exists within the jurisdiction of this Court. The mere
fact that the Defendants and the Plaintiff reside here is irrelevant.
Mr. Vora quite correctly points out that under Section 270 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925 this Court cannot possibly entertain
this Petition. The Testator never lived in Mumbai. He died in
Kerala. His Will was made in Kerala. All the properties mentioned
in that Will are outside the jurisdiction of this Court. All the
movables mentioned in the Petition are only in the nature of the
civil claim by the Petitioners and the Defendants.

¶19

5.There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Even
otherwise, there is no ground made out for review. The Review
Petition is dismissed.

¶20

6.It is however made clear that this Review Petition is entirely
without prejudice to the right of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs to file a
regular suit against the Defendants in a civil Court, if so advised.

¶21

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶22

2 of 2

Mariamma Thomas and Anr. v. T.M. Abraham and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariamma Thomas and Anr. v. T.M. Abraham and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Patidar Swajan Vs Khushali Productions and Punita Hirani

Farzan Kersi Fouzdar Vs Anosh Kersi Fouzdar.....Deceased

Haresh Kumar Amrutlal Barot and Another Vs Neelam @ Nilam @Nilamben Haresh Barot

Ranjana Jetley Pocha @ Ranjana Jetley Vs Jehangir Pocha

Rahul Premraj Tupta and Anr. Vs Deepak Premraj Gupta and Union of India through Dy.Cpo (Applicant)

Theobroma Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Karun Narula and 2 Ors.