Allowed

Anilkumar Rayanarsu Merugu v. Girija Mahadev Mainkar @ Girijabai Mahadev Mainkar (Deceased)

Bombay HC28 Aug 2024TP/4237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition for Letters of Administration with Will annexed allowed. Court found compliance with procedural rules and evidence regarding the will's execution. Letters of Administration granted to the beneficiary named in the will after verification of consents and absence of caveats.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration with Will annexed granted to petitioner.

Anilkumar Rayanarsu Merugu vs Girija Mahadev… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

SLG

¶2

BEFORE : MR. DILIP S. GURAV, FIRST ASSISTANT MASTER Date: 18^th October, 2024

¶3

CALLED FOR COMPLIANCE :

¶4

61 TP/4237/2024 )

¶5

Ms. Jannat Yadav, Advocate for petitioner

¶6

) ) P.C.: 1. Perused Petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for petitioner. ) This petition is f i led by petitioner, being benef i ciary ) named under the Will executed by Girija Mahadev ) Mainkar (herein after the same is referred to as ) “Testatrix”), for grant of Letters of Administration with ) Will annexed. Testatrix said to have died on 21.12.2017 ) at Mumbai. Petitioner f i led the copy of death certif i cate ) (which is annexed to petition as Exhibit- A ), identity ) proof of the testatrix (which is annexed to petition as ) Exhibit- A1), Will, petitioner's oath, Afdavits of legal fi ) heirs of the testatrix. ) 2. The petitioner has explained the delay in para ) No.9(a) of the petition as per Rule 382 of the Bombay ) High Court (Original Side) Rule, 1980 (for short ) “Rules”). ) ) 3. The testat ri x has not appointed Executor to execute ) the Will. The petitioner is being benef i ciary named ) under the Will. Hence, petition is tenable. ) 4. Petitioner stated that the testatrix left behind her ) ) last Will and Testament which was duly executed at ) Mumbai on 31.12.2010, in English language. Ld . ) Advocate for petitioner submits that the original Will ) No. 1686 of 2024 is handed in separately for being fled i ) and kept in a safe place in the Ofce of the fi ) Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay. ) 5. Petitioner states that husband of testatrix were ) predeceased to her and testatrix was survived by legal ) heirs shown in the paragraph No. 6. of the petition, as ) per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. ) Testatrix died leaving behind one daughter and two ) sons. Testatrix one daughter namely Sunanda Mahadev ) Mainkar and two sons namely Deepak Mahadev ) Mainkar and Sanjay Mahadev Mainkar. …...2

SLG

CONTD….

– 2 –

) 61 TP/4237/2024 ) Consent Afdavits of Sunanda Mahadev Mainkar, fi Deepak Mahadev Mainkar and Sanjay Mahadev ) Mainkar all dated 23.12.2022 are on record. They have ) given their consents in the form of Afdavits, which are fi ) f i led on the record by the petitioner and consented for ) the issuance of Letters of Administration with Will ) annexed in favour of the petitioner without justifying ) any surety in respect of their share s in the estate of the ) testatrix. They have waived the service of Citation. The ) petitioner af fi rmed that there are no other legal heirs of ) the testatrix other than mentioned in para No. 6 of the ) petition. ) ) 6. Afdavit of Service of General Citation is f fi led, i ) stating that citation has been afxed on the Notice fi ) Board of the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay and notice ) board of the Collector’s ofce on fi 21.09.2024. Notice to ) collector has been sent. ) ) 7. The petitioner has f i led the Afdavit fi s of T. ) Rajeshm and Sanjay Mahadev Maninkar both dated ) 23.12.2022 and Additional Afdavit of T. Rajeshm fi ) dated 16.10.2024, both 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 compliance fi ) of the Rule 383 of the Bombay High Court (Original ) Side) Rules, 1980 . Attesting Witness (T. Rajeshm) ) deposed that Will was typed in English language had ) explained in Marathi language to the testatrix and then ) she put her thumb impression and signed the said Will ) in Marathi language. Hence, there is compliance of ) Rule 419 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) ) Rules, 1980. Will is duly registered before the Joint ) Sub-Registrar, Kurla- III, under registration No. BDR- ) 13/III/125/2011. Attesting witness further deposed that at the time of execution of the Will, testatrix was of ) ) sound and disposing mind, memory and ……. 3

SLG

CONTD….

– 3 –

) 61 TP/4237/2024 ) 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 No. 8 of ) the petition, which reads as under : ) ) “That the Petitioner has truly set forth in Schedule No.I, hereto annexed and marked ) ) Exhibit – “C”, all the property and credits which ) the deceased died possessed of or entitled to at ) the time of his death, which have or are likely to ) come to the Petitioner’s hands. All property ) mentioned in Schedule – I are forming a part of Will”. ) ) The Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that ) properties available to the testat ri x at the time of her ) death are mentioned in the Schedule – I of the petition. ) ) 9. Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that property ) mentioned in Schedule-I of the petition has been ) bequeathed to MR. Anilkumar Rayanarsu Merugu – ) petitioner herein by testatrix. Testatrix’s all legal heirs ) have given their consents in favour of the petitioner. Hence, Letters of Administration with Will should be ) ) granted in favour of petitioner. ) 10. Petitioner has executed the Administration Bond ) dated 17.10.2024, in the prescribed format. Hence, ) following order: ) ORDER ) ) 1) Petition is granted. ) ) 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. ) 4

…. 4

SLG

CONTD….

– 4 –

61 TP/4237/2024 ) 3) Before issuance of above said Letters of ) Administration with Will, the ofce to verify that there fi ) is no cross Petition is pending or caveat is f i led. Ofce fi ) to act accordingly. )

¶20

18.10.2024

¶21

FIRST ASSISTANT MASTER

Anilkumar Rayanarsu Merugu v. Girija Mahadev Mainkar @ Girijabai Mahadev Mainkar (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar Rayanarsu Merugu v. Girija Mahadev Mainkar @ Girijabai Mahadev Mainkar (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 Sharma vs Bal Krishna Sharma (Deceased)

Shamim Mohammad Shafi Shaikh vs Farzana Noel Soans (Deceased)

Shrinivas Pannalal Shivhare vs Pannalal Ramlal Shivhare (Deceased)

Punam Narayan Bhatia vs Vindribai Parshotamdas Alias Vindribai Parshotamdas Bhatia (Deceased)

Rajeshwari Gangaram Bale vs Gangaram Gangayya Bale

Vijay Kisan Mungse and Anr. vs Chandrabhaga Kisan Mungse (Deceased)