Allowed

Prashanthan Natarajan v. N. Natarajan (Deceased)

Bombay HC5 Mar 2024TP/504/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Beneficiaries under a registered Will of their deceased father sought Letters of Administration with Will annexed, no executor having been named. Execution was proved through attesting witnesses' affidavits and consent of the widow. The First Assistant Master granted the petition.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration with Will annexed granted to petitioners under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, subject to verification of administration bond and absence of caveat or cross-petition.

Prashanthan Natarajan vs N. Natarajan (Deceased) — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

SLG

¶2

BEFORE : MR. DILIP S. GURAV, FIRST ASSISTANT MASTER Date: 13^th November, 2024

¶3

CALLED FOR COMPLIANCE :

¶4

24 TP/504/2024 ) Ms. Sampada Mahadik, Advocate for the Petitioners ) ) P.C.: 1. Perused Petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for the ) petitioner s. This Petition is f i led by the Petitioner s ) namely Prashanthan Natarajan, Pramod Natarajan and ) Pradeep Natarajan being benef i ciaries named under the ) Will executed by Natarajan Nanu alias Nanu Karthakunj ) (herein after the same is referred to as “Testator”), for ) grant of Letters of Administration with Will annexed. ) Testator said to have died on 22.08.2022 at Mumbai . ) Petitioners have f i led the copy of death certif i cate ) (which is annexed to petition as Exhibit-A-1), identity ) proof of the testator (which is annexed to petition as ) Exhibit- A ), Will, petitioner's oath. ) 2. The petitionerThe petitioner s hav havv e f f i led the present petition withinthe present petition withinpetition within ) prescribed limit as per Rule 382 of the Bombay Highd limit as per Rule 382 of the Bombay High limit as per Rule 382 of the Bombay High )

¶5

2. The petitionerThe petitioner s hav havv e f f i led the present petition withinthe present petition withinpetition within prescribed limit as per Rule 382 of the Bombay Highd limit as per Rule 382 of the Bombay High limit as per Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule, 1980 (for short “Rules”).

¶6

)

¶7

3. The petitioners have stated on oath in para No. 5 of the petition which reads as under :

¶8

)

¶9

)

¶10

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

¶11

“That the Petitioners being the legatee named under the said Will and Testament of the deceased abovenamed and is entitled to the grant to the Letters of Administration with Will annexed in respect of the properties and credits left by the deceased at the time of his death. There are no Executor named in the said Will by the deceased and hence the Petitioners (being the legatee of the deceased) have applied for the Letters of Administration of the said Will”.

¶12

There are no executors named in the said Will. Hence, Petitioners are being legatee / benef i ciaries have f i led the present Petition. The Petitioners are being benef i ciaries named under the Will. Hence, Petition is tenable.

¶13

4. Petitioners have stated that the testator left behind his last Will and Testament which was duly ….2

SLG

CONTD….

– 2 –

executed at Mumbai on 06.11.2020 in English language. L d. Advocate for Petitioner submits that the original Will No. 235 of 2024 is handed in separately for being f i led and kept in a safe place in the Ofce of the fi Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay.

¶18

5. Petitioners have stated that parents of testator were predeceased to him and testator was survived by legal heirs shown in the paragraph No s. 8 and 9 of the petition, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Testator died leaving behind his wife Radha Natarajan and three sons namely Prashanthan Natarajan – petitioner No 1, Pramod Natarajan – petitioner No. 2 and Pradeep Natarajan – petitioner No. 3 herein. Consent Afdavit of Radha Natarajan dated 02.02.2023 fi is on record. She has given her consents in the form of Afdavits, which is f fi i led on the record by the petitioners 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 shares in the estate of the testator. She has waived the service of Citation. The petitioners afrmed that fi there are no other legal heirs of the testator other than mentioned in para Nos. 8 and 9 of the petition.

¶19

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 22.04.2024. Notice to collector has been sent.

¶20

7. The Petitioners ha v e f i led the Afdavit fi s of A. Murlidharan dated 05.12.2022 and Sunil Vargese dated 02.12.2022 , both are being 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 testator 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. Will is duly registered ….3

SLG

CONTD…

– 3 –

before the Joint Sub-Registrar, Kurla No. 4 under registration No. KRL-4/III/10348/2020. Attesting Witness further deposed that at the time of execution of the Will, testator was of sound and disposing mind, memory and understanding. Hence, enough evidence is on record to accept the execution of the Will and Petitioners are succeeded to prove the execution of Will.

¶25

8. Properties mentioned in the schedule of the petition are referred in the Will. Ld. Advocate for petitioners submits that as mentioned in para No. 6 of the petition, which reads as under :

¶26

“That the Petitioners has truly set forth in Schedule-I hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “E” all the properties and credits which the deceased was possessed of or entitled to at the time of his death, which have or are likely to come to the Petitioner’s hands”.

¶27

The Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that properties available to the testator at the time of his death are mentioned in the Schedule – I of the petition.

¶28

9. Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that this matter is came on board before the Hon’ble Court on 27.09.2024. The matter has been moved before the Hon’ble Court for clarif i cation of some sentences as written in para No. 1 of the Will. The Hon’ble Court has perused the petition, Afdavits and Consents fi Afdavits in presence of Testamentary Registrar fi (Mrs.R. V. Rane). Upon hearing and perusing records in presence of Testamentary Registrar (Mrs.R. V. Rane), the Hon’ble Court has directed the department to proceed with in accordance with the Laws and Rules.

¶29

Ld. Advocate for Petitioners has f i led Afdavits of fi all three petitioners all dated 08.11.2024, wherein they had stated that they have f i led this petition in the capacity of as benef i ciaries named under the Will for betterment of properties and to protect the properties from any damage and other encroachments as per Will. They also stated that they will take decisions for

¶30

SLG

¶31

CONTD…

¶32

) 24 TP/504/2024 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

¶33

betterment and to protect the properties and …...4

¶34

– 4 –

¶35

take care of their mother. They further stated on oath that all decisions will be taken alongwith their mother and brothers jointly for the acts and action to be taken for properties mentioned in the Will. They also undertakes that they will faithfully administer the properties and credits of the testator and in the way concerning his Will by paying debts (if any). Additional Afdavit of petitioners dated 08.11.2024 are on record fi and other relevant in Para Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 12, which reads as under :

¶36

“6. I say that Testator not appointed any Executor hence, Afdavit f fi i led earlier if any not required. I further say that, the Afdavit f fi led by i my Mother dated 29 th June, 2024 for Executor by Tenure was fled by oversight as upon reading i the Will, no Executor has been appointed by the deceased by naming Executor or by tenture and hence the Af fi davit dated 29 th June, 2024 to be withdrawn.

¶37

8. I say that, the cost of maintenance and betterment of properties will be borne by me jointly with my brothers.

¶38

9. I say that, my mother living separately and I am taking care of my mother and supports for her and I contribute for her day to day needs and medical expenses.

¶39

12. I say that, I will follow each and every terms and conditions as def i ned in the last Will and Testament of the deceased”.

¶40

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that as per Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, she has complied with all the ofce objections raised by the fi Registry viz. Administration Bond which is on record and Afdavit of Service f fi led by Rahul Ananda Vairal i dated 06.05.2024 proving pasting of citation on the Notice board of the Hon’ble High Court and Collector’s Ofce. Of fi ce objections regarding Notice to Collector fi has been also complied with.

¶41

SLG

¶42

CONTD….

¶43

) 24 TP/504/2024 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

¶44

…...5

¶45

– 5 –

¶46

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that as petitioner’s have stated on oath in para No. 12 of their Afdavits that they will follow each and every terms fi and conditions as def i ned in the Will of the testator and hence, Letters of Administration with Will should be granted in favour of the petitioners. Statement made by the Ld. Advocate for petitioners is accepted.

¶47

10. Petitioner has executed the administration Bond dated 03.05.2024 in the prescribed format. Hence, following order:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

1) Petition is granted.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

13.11.2024 FIRST ASSISTANT MASTER

Prashanthan Natarajan v. N. Natarajan (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashanthan Natarajan v. N. Natarajan (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

Purnima Rajesh Meshram vs Rajesh Ganpatrao Meshram (Deceased)

Vidya Vinay Bhat vs Vinay Vishnu Bhat

Vijayshree Yeshwant Worlikar vs Indu Yashwant Worlikar

Subhas Kumar Basu vs Amal Kumar Basu S/O. Promoda Charan Bose (Deceased)

Mahesh Vitthal Bagwe vs Suhasini Balkrishna Parab (Deceased)

Subhas Kumar Basu vs Amal Kumar Basu S/O. Promoda Charan Bose (Deceased)