Allowed

Sujit Narottamdas Parmar v. Pramilaben Narottamdas Parmar

Bombay HC10 Oct 2024TP/3844/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 filed by the sons of the deceased was allowed granting Letters of Administration. The court noted the petition was uncontested, cited the Hindu Succession Act regarding exemption from surety bond, and directed the filing of accounts and verification of caveats before issuance. The petition arose from the death of Pramilaaben Narottamdas Parmar.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration granted to petitioners for properties left by deceased; account to be filed; verification of caveats mandated before issuance.

Sujit Narottamdas Parmar vs Pramilaben Narottamdas… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 81.TP/3844/2024

¶2

Before :Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date 24th October, 2024

¶3

FOR COMPLIANCE:

¶4

TP/3844/2024 P. Ms. Pushpa Thapa Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner C. :

¶5

[Original] (ECHCBM0213479 2024)

¶6

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 Pramilaben Narottamdas Parmar (For short “Said deceased”). The petitioners, namely (1) SUJIT NAROTTAMDAS PARMAR, (2) KINJAL NAROTTAMDAS PARMAR, have filed documents.

¶7

I have heard Ld. Advocate. I perused the 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.

¶8

Said deceased died as a Widow on 16/07/2017 at Gujrat leaving behind her legal heirs, shown in the paragraph No. 4 of the petition. Petitioners state that there are no other legal heirs to the deceased, except heirs shown in the petition. Deceased left properties shown in the schedule-I of the petition. The delay has been explained vide Rule 382 of the Rules.

¶9

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 brought to the notice regarding pending litigation pertaining to the same properties. Hence, the petition is

¶10

2 81.TP/3844/2024

¶11

treated as uncontested one.

¶12

In view of the Order, passed in the TP No. 2918/2023, the all legal heirs of the deceased are petitioners, and therefore they are exempted from the furnishing the surety Bond.

¶13

Ld. Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in view of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner, being sons of the deceased, are entitled to seek a Letters of Administration. Hence, facts stated by petitioners, 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 petitioners 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. The petitioners to file an account as under taken in a Petitioner’s Oath within stipulated period.

¶17

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.

¶18

Officer on Special Duty,

¶19

24th October, 2024 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department

Sujit Narottamdas Parmar v. Pramilaben Narottamdas Parmar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujit Narottamdas Parmar v. Pramilaben Narottamdas Parmar

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

Laxmi Babu Jadhav vs Bodke Laxman Somakka Alias Somakka Laxman Bodke (Deceased)

Mr. Dattatray Kalyanji Patel vs Mrs. Vatsala Kalyanji Patel (Deceased)

Ganesh Bhalchandra Patil vs Bhalchandra Krishna Patil

Smita Prakash Shirke vs Savitri Mahadeo Vichare (Deceased)

Rebecca Valerie Braganza Wd/O Simon Braganza vs Simon Braganza S/O Santurnino Braganza

Vinaya Ashok Shetty vs Ashok Shama Shetty