Hutoxi Hoshang Boman v. Hira Aspi Bhesania (Deceased)

Bombay HC1 Apr 2025IA/865/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC OOCJ interim application to amend schedule of testamentary petition following probate grant; omitted immovable property of deceased Hira Aspi Bhesania; compliance affidavit ordered 1 April 2025; agreement for sale dated 5 June 2008 with M/s. Gini Constructions Company; affidavit silent on date of awareness (October 2024 stated across the bar); non-compliance found; matter stood over to 9 June 2025; single judge Arif S. Doctor; no statute or precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted on the amendment request; the matter was stood over to 9th June 2025 to enable the applicant to file an additional affidavit in full compliance with the order dated 1st April 2025. ¶¶16

Hutoxi Hoshang Boman vs Hira Aspi Bhesania (Deceased) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted on the amendment request; the matter was stood over to 9th June 2025 to enable the applicant to file an additional affidavit in full compliance with the order dated 1st April 2025.

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the schedule to the Testamentary Petition may be amended to add the immovable property of the deceased that was omitted from the probate grant. +1 more

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

The additional affidavit tendered in purported compliance does not set out when the applicant became aware of the agreement for sale dated 5th June 2008; the asserted October 2024 awareness was stated only across the bar and is not recorded in the affidavit.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

The applicant has not complied with the Court's previous order (dated 1st April 2025), and compliance is necessary before any relief can be granted on the request to amend the schedule.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim Application No. 865 of 2025 in Testamentary Petition No. 1425 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction; Arif S. Doctor J.). Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Hira Aspi Bhesania (deceased) had been granted to applicant Hutoxi Houshang Boman vide order dated 30th July 2024. The applicant filed this Interim Application to amend the schedule to the Testamentary Petition by adding an immovable property of the deceased inadvertently omitted from the schedule. By order dated 1st April 2025 the Court directed the applicant to file an affidavit setting out how she became aware that the deceased owned the property and the basis on which it is claimed the property stood in the deceased's name at the time of her death. The additional affidavit tendered annexed an agreement for sale dated 5th June 2008 executed between M/s. Gini Constructions Company and the deceased, but did not state when the applicant became aware of the agreement (stated across the bar as October 2024). Finding the directions of 1st April 2025 not fully complied with, the Court held that compliance must precede relief and stood the matter over to 9th June 2025.

¶1

25-IA-865-2025.doc

¶2

Shailaja

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.865 OF 2025

¶4

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.1425 OF 2024

¶6

Hutoxi Houshang Boman ] Applicant Hira Aspi Bhesania ] Deceased

¶7

Ms. Sneha Nair a/w Mr. Nutash Kotwal i/b Veritas Legal, for Applicant/Original Petitioner.

¶8

P.C:

¶9

This Court had vide an order dated 30th July 2024 granted a Probate to the Applicant in respect of the Last Will and Testament of one Hira Aspi Bhesania (‘the deceased’).

¶10

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant points out that after issuance of grant, the applicant became aware that inadvertently immovable property belonged to the deceased was omitted to be mentioned in the schedule. It is thus present Interim Application has been filed seeking to amend the schedule to the Testamentary petition by adding the said property. This Court vide its order dated 1 st April, 2025 directed the applicant to file an affidavit setting out how the applicant became aware of the fact that the deceased had said immovable property and the basis on

¶11

1 of 2

¶12

SHAILAJA Digitally signed bySHAILAJA SHRIKANT SHRIKANT HALKUDE Date: 2025.05.03 HALKUDE 13:47:53 +0530

¶13

25-IA-865-2025.doc

¶14

which it is claimed that the said property stood in the name of the deceased at the time of her death.

¶15

In compliance with the order, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has today tendered an additional affidavit of the applicant which annexes to it an agreement for sale dated 5 th June, 2008 executed between one M/s. Gini Constructions Company and deceased in respect of the said property which is sought to be added. However, perusal of the affidavit does not set out when the applicant became aware of this agreement for sale. It is stated across the bar that the applicant became aware in October, 2024. I find this is not mentioned in the additional affidavit. Since the directions contained in the order dated 1st April, 2025 have not been complied with fully, learned Counsel seeks time to file an additional affidavit in compliance.

¶16

In my view, the applicant has not complied with the previous order. It is necessary for the applicant first to do so before relief is granted. Hence, stand over to 9th June, 2025 .

¶17

[ARIF S. DOCTOR J.]

¶18

2 of 2

Hutoxi Hoshang Boman v. Hira Aspi Bhesania (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hutoxi Hoshang Boman v. Hira Aspi Bhesania (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashutosh Srivastava vs Dewan Housing Finance Corportion Limited (Deleted) and Anr.

Gajanan Precision Industries Engineering Private Limited vs Rajiv Liladhar Chaudhari

Zenobia R. Poonawla (Nee Ginwalla) and Another vs Dr. Rustom Farhad Ginwalla and Others

Moraj Ahn Developers LLP vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and 27 Ors.

Ashok Kumar Damani vs Yashashree Construction Co.

Ramkrishna Satishchandra Palekar vs Snehalata Satishchandra Palekar