Allowed

Jessy Mammen Joseph v. (I) Late Punnaseril Mathew Abraham (Deceased)

Bombay HC8 Mar 2024TP/20/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for Letters of Administration for properties left by two deceased persons. Citation issued, no one contested, legal heir consented by affidavit, administration bond filed with surety. Petition allowed and Letters of Administration granted to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration granted to the petitioner for the scheduled properties of the deceased.

Jessy Mammen Joseph vs (I) Late Punnaseril Mathew… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 57.TP/20/2024

¶2

Before : Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date 19th April, 2024

¶3

FOR COMPLIANCE:

¶4

TP/20/2024 P. Shri. Suraj Vishwakarma i/b Prashant Ayare Ld. Advocate C. : (ECHCBM020600 for the Petitioner 92023)

¶5

This is a petition for grant of Letters of Administration, under the Provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “IS Act”) for the properties left by the deceased, namely (1) Punnaseril Mathew Abraham and (2) Saramma Punnaseril Abraham(For short “Said deceased”). The petitioner, namely Jessy Mammen Joseph, has filed documents such as true copy of the death certificate of the deceased, identity proof of the deceased, oath in the prescribed format, affidavit of service citation.

¶6

I have heard Ld. Advocate and perused the petition along with the documents. Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that he has uploaded administration bond online having document no. EDHCBM02149512024

¶7

Said deceased No. 1 died widower died on 28/07/2022 and deceased No. 2 died married on 14/08/2022 at Mumbai leaving behind them legal heirs, shown in the paragraph No. 4 of the petition. Petitioner states that there are no other legal heirs to the deceased, except heirs shown in the petition. Deceased left properties shown in the schedule.

¶8

Citation was issued, which has been duly affixed on the conspicuous part of the Hon’ble High Court and notice board of the Collector’s Office at Mumbai and 14 days have been expired vide Rule 397(1) and (4) of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980(for short “BHC Rules”) and an affidavit to that effect has been filed. Notice to collector has been issued vide Rule 396 of BHC Rules. Till today, no one appeared to resist the claim of the petitioner or nothing is

¶9

2 57.TP/20/2024

¶10

brought to the notice regarding pending litigation pertaining to the same properties. Hence, the petition is treated as uncontested one.

¶11

Legal heir of the deceased has consented by way of Affidavit to grant prayer of petitioner to grant a Letters of Administration, without reserving any right. He has accepted the facts, regarding their relationship, inter-se.

¶12

Petitioner has filed the administration Bond in prescribed form No. 118 with surety.

¶13

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925, the petitioner, being daughter of the deceased, is entitled to seek a Letters of Administration. Hence, facts stated by petitioner and heir of the deceased, on oath, remained unchallenged and required to be accepted. Accordingly, petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. Hence, following order:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1. Petition is allowed and the Letters of Administration be granted to the petitioner for properties, left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in prescribed format as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

¶16

1. Before issuance of the grant, the office to verify that there is no cross Petition is pending or caveat resisting the petition is filed.

¶17

1. The petitioner to file an account as under taken in a Petitioner’s Oath within stipulated period. Necessary endorsement be made on the administration Bond, subject to satisfaction of the Department.

¶18

19th April, 2024 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department

Jessy Mammen Joseph v. (I) Late Punnaseril Mathew Abraham (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jessy Mammen Joseph v. (I) Late Punnaseril Mathew Abraham (Deceased)

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sushila Balbahadur Sonar vs Sulochana Rajaram Shinde(Deceased)

Prakash Dularam Panjabi vs Jyoti Prakash Panjabi (Deceased)

Kenneth Paul and Anr. vs the Collector Mumbai Suburban District and 2 Ors.

Ayesha Ashraf Chougle vs Nishat Fatima Yusuf Shaikh (Deceased)

Jaya Shivkrishnakumar Dighe vs Shikrishnakumar Digambar Dighe (Deceased)

Vinod Kashiram Naik vs Sitabai Kashiram Naik (Deceased)