Allowed

Mini Elizabeth Mathew v. Aleyamma David Mathew (Deceased)

Bombay HC8 Feb 2024TP/284/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition by two legatees under the Will of a deceased testatrix for Letters of Administration with Will annexed. Attesting witnesses proved due execution and sound mind; beneficiary consent and administration bonds were filed; petition granted.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration with Will annexed to be issued to petitioners upon proper execution of administration bond and verification that no cross-petition or caveat is pending.

Mini Elizabeth Mathew vs Aleyamma David Mathew… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

SLG

¶2

BEFORE : MR. DILIP S. GURAV, FIRST ASSISTANT MASTER Date: 4^th July, 2024

¶3

CALLED FOR COMPLIANCE :

¶4

38 TP/284/2024 ) Ms. Maharukh Adenwalla, Advocate for petitioner )

¶5

) P.C.: )

¶6

1. Perused Petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for petitioner s. This petition is fled by petitioner i s, both are being legatees named under the Will executed by Aleyamma David Mathew (herein after the same is referred to as “Testatrix”), for grant of Letters of Administration with Will annexed. Testatrix said to have died on 07.11.2020 at Mumbai. Petitioners have f i led the copy of death certif i cates (which is annexed to petition as Exhibit- A), identity proof of the testatrix (which is annexed to petition at page No. 28), Will, petitioner's oath, Afdavits of legal fi heirs of the testatrix.

¶7

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

¶8

) )

¶9

2. The petitioners ha v e f i led petition within prescribe d limit as per Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule, 1980 (for short “Rules”).

¶10

) )

¶11

)

¶12

3. The testatr i x has not appointed executor to execute the Will. The petitioners are being legatees named under the Will. Hence, petition is tenable.

)

)

) ) )

4. Petitioners stated that the testatrix left behind her last Will and Testament which was duly executed at Mumbai on 15.09.2018, in English language. Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that the original Will is handed in separately for being f i led and kept in a safe place in the Ofce of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, fi Bombay.

)

)

)

)

)

¶22

)

¶23

) 5. Petitioner s have stated that husband of testatrix w as ) predeceased to her and testatrix was survived by legal

¶24

) heirs shown in the paragraph No. 9 of the petition, as per ) the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925

¶25

) applicable to Christian. Husband of testatrix namely ) David C. Mathew died on 25.10.2020. Testatrix died ) – leaving behind only son namely Robby David Mathew

¶26

) petitioner No. 2 and only daughter namely Mini Elizabeth

¶27

) Mathew – Petitioner No. 1 herein. …...2

SLG

CONTD….

– 3 –

) The petitioner afrmed that fi testatrix has left surviving as 38 TP/284/2024 ) her only heirs and next-of-kin which was mentioned in ) para 9 of the petition. ) ) 6. Afdavit of Service of General Citation is f fi led, i ) stating that citation has been af fi xed on the Notice Board ) of the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay and notice board of ) the Collector’s ofce on fi 05.03.2024. Notice to collector ) has been sent. ) 7. The petitioners ha v e f i led the Afdavits of fi Mrs. Savita ) Thadani and Swaroop Sadh both dated 25.07.2023 , both ) being the Attesting Witnesses to the Will, in the Form ) No.102 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, ) 1980. Attesting witnesses deposed that they were present ) and testatrix signed on the Testament papers in presence ) of both of them. According to them, all additions and ) alteration, in a Will, were existed at the time of execution ) and before signing the Will. Hence, there is sufcient fi ) compliance of the Rule 383 of the Bombay High Court ) (Original Side) Rules, 1980 . They have further deposed ) that at the time of execution of the Will, testatrix was of ) sound and disposing mind, memory and understanding. ) Hence, enough evidence is on record to accept the ) execution of the Will and petitioner is succeeded to prove ) the execution of Will. ) 8. Properties mentioned in the Schedule - I of the ) petition are referred in the Will. Ld. Advocate for ) petitioner submits that as mentioned in para 6 of the ) petition which reads as under : ) ) “That the petitioners have truly set forth in Schedule ) No.I, hereto annexed and marked Exhibit ‘C’, all the ) property and credits which the said deceased died ) possessed or or entitled to at the time of her death, ) which have or are likely to come to their hands”. ) The Ld. Advocate for the petitioners submitted that ) properties available to the testat ri x at the time of her death ) is mentioned in the Schedule - I of the petition. ) 9. As per order dated 23.04.2024 requisitions has been ) raised, which reads as under : ) ) ….3

SLG

CONTD….

) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

– 3 –

“Heard Ld. Advocate for petitioner. In the Will, there are some benef i ciaries hence, Advocate for petitioner to fle consent Af i fi davits of the said benef i ciaries. At the request of Ld. Advocate for petitioner, matter is adjourned till 14.06.2024 for compliance”.

¶37

Ld. Advocate for petitioner has f i led Afdavit of fi Malaika Mathew Chawla dated 15.06.2024 which is on record. She has given her consent in the form of Afdavit, fi which is f i led on the record by the petitioners and consented for the issuance of Letters of Administration with Will annexed in favour of the petitioners without justifying any surety in respect of her share in the estate of the testatrix. She has waived the service of Citation.

¶38

10. Ld. Advocate for petitioners have fled Af i davit of fi petitioner No. 1, Mini Elizabeth Mathew dated 06.06.2024 and stated on oath that Safe Deposit Locker No. 106A, with the Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bandra, was in the joint name with Testatrix. She stated on oath that the jewellery which was mentioned at Sr. No. 9 of the Schedule I of this petition was found in the said locker. She stated further on oath that she had closed the said locker.

¶39

11. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 hav e executed the Administration Bond dated 22.03.2024 and 05.06.2024, in the prescribed format. Hence, following order:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

1) Petition is granted.

¶42

2) Ofce to issue Letters of Administration with Will fi annexed as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to the petitioner and upon satisfaction that the administration Bond is properly executed, as per the Rules.

¶43

3) Before issuance of above said Letters of Administration with Will, the ofce to verify that there is fi no cross Petition is pending or caveat is fled. Of i ce to act fi accordingly.

¶44

FIRST ASSISTANT MASTER

¶45

04.07.2024

¶46

SLG

Mini Elizabeth Mathew v. Aleyamma David Mathew (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mini Elizabeth Mathew v. Aleyamma David Mathew (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

Fatima Abdul Latif Sawkar vs Abdul Latif Sawakar (Deceased)

Rajendra Baliram Dhawan vs Laxman Vishnu Dhawan Alias Laxman Vishnu Dhavan Alias Laxman Vishnu Dawan Alias Dawan Laxman Vishnu

Purushottam Sanabhai Patel vs Balubhai Chhaganlal Bhanji

Anand Bharat Shah vs Parimal Dhirajlal Shah (Deceased)

Chandrakant Mohanlal Gabhawala vs Vinod Himatlal Desai (Deceased)

Pradeep Ganpat Sankhe vs Deepak Ganpat Sankhe(Deceased)