Allowed

Sheriar Nariman Irani v. Rustom Nariman Irani (Deceased)

Bombay HC2 Feb 2024TP/391/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Probate petition for the will of a deceased Parsi executed in Mumbai, filed by the sole named executor after delay. Attesting witnesses' affidavits, consent affidavit, oath and service of general citation were on record and formalities complied with; probate was granted.

What did the court decide?

Probate issued as prayed, subject to verification that no cross petition or caveat is filed.

Sheriar Nariman Irani vs Rustom Nariman Irani… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Pallavi

¶2

Before: Shri S. S. Agate Addl. Registrar (O.S.) / Addl. Prothonotary and Senior Master

¶3

Date : 07^th August 2024.

¶4

CALLED FOR COMPLIANCE :

¶5

TP/391/2024 ) Mr. Parth Shah a/w. Ms. Shrushti Relekar i/b. Sujit ) Lahoti & Associates, Adovate for the Petitioner. (ECHCBM02161662023) ) WITH ) WILL/169/2024 ) ) P.C.: 1. Perused Petition which is filed online. ) Heard Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner. This ) Petition is for Probate of Last Will and ) ) Testament of the deceased filed by the ) Petitioner Sheriar Nariman Irani, being the sole ) Executor named under the Will of the ) deceased. Deceased Rustom Nariman Irani, ) said to have died at Mumbai on 14.05.2018. ) Copy of death certificate is annexed to the ) Petition. For identification proof of the ) ) deceased, copy of Aadhaar Card is annexed to ) the Petition. ) ) 2. Mr. Parth Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner ) submits that deceased left behind him last Will ) and Testament which was duly executed at ) Mumbai on 29.01.2018. The said Will is in ) English language. ) ) ) 3. Mr. Parth Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner ) submits that deceased was governed under the ) Indian Succession Act 1925 applicable to ) Parsis. It is submitted that the parents of the ) deceased predeceased the deceased. The ) deceased had no other son or daughter. Save ) and except as mentioned in para – 9, there are ) no other legal heirs left by the deceased. The ) Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the ) delay in making present Petition is on account )

¶6

) ) )

¶7

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

¶8

of the fact that Petitioner was ignorant and unaware of obtaining any legal representation. Now Petitioner has been orally advised to obtain a legal representation. Hence, this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice may condone the delay in filing present Petition. Thus, the delay is explained.

¶9

Petitioner’s Oath is filed. Consent Affidavit of brother of the deceased as mentioned in para – 9 is on record. Affidavits of Behram Minoo Wadia and Kayomars Faramarz Doomasia, both the attesting witnesses to the Will are filed. Affidavit of service of General Citation is filed. All the Affidavits are also filed online. All other legal formalities are complied with. Hence, Petition is granted.

¶10

Office to issue Probate as prayed after verifying whether any Cross Petition or Caveat is filed.

¶11

Addl. Registrar (O.S.) / Addl. Prothonotary and Senior Master

¶12

07.08.2024

Sheriar Nariman Irani v. Rustom Nariman Irani (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheriar Nariman Irani v. Rustom Nariman Irani (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjit Sadanand Kotian vs Sadanand Appaya Kotian (Deceased)

Amol Ashok Padhye vs Sudha Madhusudan Joshi Deceased

Vishal Balaram Verekar vs Balaram Raghuvir Verekar (Decased)

Poonam Lalit Kumar vs Lalit Krishanchander Kumar (Deceased)

Nandini Rajagopal vs Rajagopalan Angadipuram Ramlinga (Deceased)

Chandrashekar Gowder Son of Veerangouda Bandangouda Sankangouder vs Veeranagouda Bandangouda Sankangoudar Alias v B Sankangoudar (Deceased)