Allowed¶28

Padma Dattaram Ugale and Anr. v. Bhagyashree Dattaram Ugale

Bombay HC5 May 2025IA/11725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; probate certificate; Section 276 Indian Succession Act 1925; Joint Civil Judge Senior Division Vasai; Civil Misc. Application No. 5 of 2021; will; exclusive right to estate; known legal heirs not made parties to probate; newspaper citation wide circulation; First Appeal (St.) No. 18875 of 2024; Padma Dattaram Ugale; Bhagyashree Dattaram Ugale; Dattaram Ugale; Smt. Kavita; certified copies May 2024; summer vacation; admission 19.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 2 years and 42 days in filing the appeal condoned; interim application disposed of accordingly; first appeal directed to be placed for admission on 19.11.2025. ¶28

Padma Dattaram Ugale and Anr. vs Bhagyashree… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 2 years and 42 days in filing the appeal condoned; interim application disposed of accordingly; first appeal directed to be placed for admission on 19.11.2025.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay of 2 years and 42 days in filing First Appeal (St.) No. 18875 of 2024 against the probate order dated 24.02.2022.

¶16

Court's answer

Since the probate application itself disclosed the present Applicants as wife and daughter of the deceased (along with a third person Smt. Kavita and her children), the known legal heirs could have been made parties in the probate application.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Considering the averments in the application, the rival cases, and that the proceedings relate to a claim of 'exclusive right' to the estate on the basis of a will, sufficient cause is made out for condonation of the delay of 2 years and 42 days.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.M. Sathaye, J.), by order dated 12.11.2025, allowed Interim Application No. 11725 of 2024 in First Appeal (St.) No. 18875 of 2024, condoning a delay of 2 years and 42 days in filing an appeal against the order dated 24.02.2022 of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasai in Civil Misc. Application No. 5 of 2021, whereby the Respondent's application for a probate certificate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was allowed. The Applicants, claiming to be the earlier wife and daughter of the deceased Dattaram Ugale, pleaded ignorance of the order till February 2024, alleging non-joinder and publication of citation in a newspaper without wide circulation in their area. Noting that the probate application itself disclosed the Applicants as wife and daughter, besides a third person Smt. Kavita and her children, and that the Respondent claimed 'exclusive right' to the estate under the probated will, the Court held the known legal heirs could have been made parties and sufficient cause was made out. Delay condoned; appeal placed for admission on 19.11.2025.

¶1

6 IA-11725-2024.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA HUSENBASHARAHAMAN RAHAMAN NADAF NADAF Date: 2025.11.12 18:26:13 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11725 OF 2024

¶6

¶7

FIRST APPEAL (St.) NO. 18875 OF 2024

¶8

Padma Dattaram Ugale and Another ...Applicants/Appellants Versus Bhagyashree Dattaram Ugale ...Respondent ****

¶9

Mr. Omkar Nagwekar i/b Ms. Prabha Badadare for Applicants/Appellants.

¶10

Ms. Kajal Wadhwana i/b H. Kumar Vaidyanathan for Respondent.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 12^th NOVEMBER, 2025

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11725 OF 2024

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

This is an application for condonation of delay of 2 years and 42 days in filing of the appeal. The present appeal is filed against order dated 24.02.2022 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasai in Civil Misc. Application No. 5 of 2021. By the impugned order, the application filed by the present Respondent for grant of probate certificate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been allowed.

¶17

The Applicants claim to be earlier wife and daughter of the deceased Dattaram Ugale. It is the case of the present Applicants that the Respondent did not make the Applicants party to the application for probate and the newspaper in which the notice is claimed to have

Page 1 of 3

Husen

6 IA-11725-2024.doc

been published, does not have wide circulation in the area where the Applicants reside. It is therefore contended that the Applicants had no knowledge of the impugned order, till February 2024 when they learned about probate. That thereafter they made enquiry in Vasai Court and obtained certified copies in May 2024. That thereafter summer vacation ensued and Applicants could approach the advocate with necessary instructions in June 2024 and application is filed in July 2024.

¶22

The Respondent has filed reply and contended that the Applicants were aware of the Will of the deceased Dattaram and therefore they could have appeared in the application for probate. It is further contended that the necessary citation was published in the newspaper and therefore there is no merit in Applicants’ case.

¶23

I have perused the record. The Application for probate itself discloses the name of present Applicants as wife and daughter of the deceased Dattaram. The application interestedly also discloses the name of a third person Smt. Kavita and children begotten from her, apart from the Applicants and the Respondent. In such circumstances, the known legal heirs could have been made party in the probate application. The Respondent is claiming exclusive right to estate of deceased Dattaram under the probated will.

¶24

Considering the averments made in the application and the case made out by rival parties and further considering that the proceedings relate to claim on the basis of a will seeking ‘exclusive right’, sufficient cause is made out.

Page 2 of 3

Husen

6 IA-11725-2024.doc