Disposed

Nalini Sham Rao v. Rao Ramanatha K. R. Alias Kalianpur Ramachandra Ramanathan Rao Alias K R Ramanath Rao

Bombay HC11 Jun 2024TP/674/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A probate petition by a legatee under the Will of a deceased testator sought Letters of Administration with Will annexed, the named sole executrix having died without proving the Will. All court requisitions were answered via affidavit, an Administration Bond was executed, and the petition was granted.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration with Will annexed ordered to be issued to petitioner upon satisfaction that the Administration Bond is properly executed.

Nalini Sham Rao vs Rao Ramanatha K. R. Alias… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

SLG

¶2

BEFORE : MR. DILIP S. GURAV, FIRST ASSISTANT MASTER Date: 25^th July, 2024

¶3

CALLED FOR COMPLIANCE :

¶4

42 TP/674/2024 )

¶5

) Ms. Akansha Agarwal i/b. Manish Bohra, Advocate for ) petitioner

¶6

)

¶7

) P.C.: 1. Perused Petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for petitioner. ) This petition is fled by petitioner, being i one of the legatee s ) named under the Will executed by Rao Ramanatha K. R. ) (herein after the same is referred to as “Testator”), for grant ) of Letters of Administration with Will annexed. Testator ) said to have died on 11.07.2005 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 testator (which is ) annexed to petition as Exhibit- A-1), Will, petitioner's oath, ) Afdavits of legal heirs of the testator. fi

)

) )

)

)

)

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

¶14

2. The petitioner has explained the delay in para No. 10 of the petition as per Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule, 1980 (for short “Rules”).

¶15

3. The testator had appointed his wife namley Laxmi alias Lakshmi Ramanatha Rao as sole executrix of the Will. Said executrix died on 28.03.2023 without proving the Will of the testator. Her death cetif i cate is annexed to the petition as Exhibit – “C”. Hence, the petitioner is being one of the legatees named under the Will. Hence, petition is tenable.

¶16

4. Petitioner stated that the testator left behind his last Will and Testament which was duly executed at Mumbai on 23.11.2000, in English language. Ld. Advocte 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.

¶17

5. Petitioner states that parents of testator were predeceased to h i m and testator was survived by legal heirs shown in the paragraph No. 8 of the petition, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Testator died leaving behind four married daughters and …...2

SLG

CONTD….

– 2 –

SLG

CONTD...

– 3 –

as mentioned in para 11 of the petition, which reads as under:

¶25

“The petitioner states that except the immovable and movable properties mentioned in Schedule I, the other movable properties as shown in the Schedule B annexed to the said Will had already been transferred / liquidated by the testator during his lifetime. Hence, the Petitioner has not shown the said movable properties in Schedule I annexed to the present petition though the same are mentioned by the testator in his last Will and testament”.

¶26

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.

¶27

9 . Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that as mentioned in para 12 of the petition that the jewellery, ornaments things lying under the bank locker No. 39 has not been shown as the said locker was closed by testator’s wife during her lifetime. Para No. 12 of the petition reads as under :

¶28

The Petitioner further states that Bank Locker vide No.39 in Canara Bank Kalina Branch, Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 029 as mentioned in paragraph No. 13 of the said Will, was standing in the name of the deceased jointly with his wife Laxmi alias Lakshmi Ramanatha Rao and daughter Mrs. Radha Ravishankar and after the death of the deceased all the jewellery, ornaments, things etc. lying under said Bank locker were already given to wife of the deceased thereafter, said locker was closed. Hence, the petitioner has not shown the jewellery, ornments, things etc. lying under the said Bank locker in Schedule I annexed to the present petition though the same are mentioned by the deceased in his last Will and Testament”.

¶29

10. As per the Will, testator has bequeathed some of his properties as mentioned in para 6 of the petition, which reads as under : ….4

SLG

CONTD...

– 4 –

“That the petitioner has truly set forth in Schedule No.I, hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “D”, all the property and credits which the deceased possessed of or entitled to at the time of his death which have or are likely to come to the hands of the Petitioner. So far as the petitioner has been able to ascertain or is aware there are no property and credits other than what are specif i ed in Schedule – I annexed to the present petition.

¶34

10A. As per para No. 6 of the Will, testator has bequeathed f l at No. 58 to Nandita Sham Rao, then minor granddaughter of testator.

¶35

The said Nandita Sham Rao, one of the benef i ciaries as stated above is now major and f i led her Consent Afdavit fi dated 06.10.2023. She has given her consent in the form of Afdavit, which is f fi 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 her share in the estate of the testator. She has waived the service of Citation.

¶36

11. As per requisition No. 1 raised in the order dated 12.06.2024, which reads as “As mentioned in para No. 1 of the Will, Ld. Advocate for petitioner to verify whether deceased has left any other Codicil”.

¶37

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that he has f i led Afdavit of petitioner dated 02.07.2024 and stated on oath fi that testator has made only Will and there is no codicil.

¶38

12. As per requisition No. 2 raised in the order dated 12.06.2024, which reads as “As per para Nos. 10 and 11 of the Will, Ld. Advocate for petitioner to explain, whether directions has been complied or not”.

¶39

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that he has fled i Afdavit of petitioner dated 02.07.2024 and stated that as fi provided in paras 10 and 11 of the Will, testator’s wish to appoint Mr. A. Ravishankar as an Arbitrator for the purpose of solving disputes and / or misunderstanding that may arise between the daughters of the testator and since there is no dispute and they have f i led their …..5

SLG

CONTD...

– 5 –

) consent Afdavits which are on record. fi 42 TP/674/2024 ) ) 13. As per requisition No. 3 raised in the order dated ) 12.06.2024, which reads as “Properties mentioned in the ) Will and not shown in the Schedule”. ) Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that he has f i led ) Afdavit of petitioner dated 02.07.2024 and stated that fi ) there are certain properties found in the Schedule B of the ) Will which are not stated in the exhibit D of the petition ) since, the aforesaid properties have been dealt with and ) disposed of by the testator during his lifetime and are no ) longer available for distribution to the heirs. Hence, said ) properties are not mentioned in the Schedule - I annexed to ) the petition. ) 14. As per requisition No. 4 raised in the order dated ) 12.06.2024, which reads as “To provide type copy of the ) Will”. ) ) Ld. Advocate for petitioner has provided typed copy of ) the Will and the same has been also uploaded on the ) ofcial portal of the Bombay High Court. fi ) 15. Petitioner has executed the Administration Bond ) dated 29.04.2024, 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. ) ) 3) Before issuance of above said Letters of Administration ) with Will, the ofce to verify that there is no cross Petition fi ) is pending or caveat is f i led. Ofce to act accordingly fi

¶44

25.07.2024 FIRST ASSISTANT MASTER

Nalini Sham Rao v. Rao Ramanatha K. R. Alias Kalianpur Ramachandra Ramanathan Rao Alias K R Ramanath Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalini Sham Rao v. Rao Ramanatha K. R. Alias Kalianpur Ramachandra Ramanathan Rao Alias K R Ramanath Rao

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

Ashok Kumar Issardas Bhatia vs Sarasati Issardas Bhatia - Deceased

Suhasini Subhash Gawade @ Jyotsna Gopal Parab vs Sangeeta Gopal Parab (Deceased)

Santosh Jayram Joshi vs Jayram Balram Joshi (Deceased)

Sanjay Raghunath Andurlekar vs Manorama Raghunath Andurlekar Alias M R Andurlekar

Amar Arvind Manda vs Arvind Eknath Manda

Dr. Dilip Vishwanath Kulkarni vs Manorama Narayan Kulkarni (Deceased)