Allowed¶31

Pankaja Anil Mandhle and Anr. v. Tushar Shrikant Mangeshikar

Bombay HC26 Mar 2025MPT/151/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Succession certificate cancellation; suppression of legal heirs; testamentary petition granted without citation; false statements on oath; costs Rs.1,00,000/- each; daughters declared entitled to 1/4th share each in deceased parents' securities; Bombay High Court testamentary jurisdiction; miscellaneous petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Succession Certificate cancelled; Petitioners declared daughters of Mrs. Shalini Shrikant Mangeshikar and Dr. Shrikant Nagappa Mangeshikar entitled to 1/4th share each in the securities of the deceased parents; costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the Respondent to each Petitioner; liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings against the Respondent for the false statements; Interim Application No. 872 of 2025 de-tagged. ¶31

Pankaja Anil Mandhle and Anr. vs Tushar Shrikant Mangeshikar — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the Succession Certificate granted to the Respondent, who falsely claimed to be the sole legal heir of the deceased, should be cancelled. +2 more

¶18

Court's answer

It is not disputed before the Court that the Succession Certificate was obtained on a false pretext, and it is required to be forthwith cancelled.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Costs are imposed on the Respondent, who shall pay the Petitioners costs of Rs.1,00,000/- each.

¶31

Key takeaways

The Miscellaneous Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c), whereby the Succession Certificate is cancelled and the Petitioners are declared daughters of the deceased parents entitled to a 1/4th share each in the securities.ratio¶31
The Petitioners are left at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings against the Respondent in regard to the false statements made in the Testamentary Petition.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction), Arif S. Doctor, J. — Miscellaneous Petition No. 151 of 2025 in Testamentary Petition No. 2286 of 2024 (decided 26 March 2025): The Respondent had obtained a Succession Certificate as purported sole legal heir of Mrs. Shalini Shrikant Mangeshikar and Dr. Shrikant Nagappa Mangeshikar, suppressing that the Petitioners were also legal heirs (daughters) of the deceased, and the Testamentary Petition had been granted without citation to them. With the position undisputed before the Court that the Succession Certificate was obtained on a false pretext, the Court cancelled it forthwith, allowed the Petition in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) — declaring the Petitioners to be daughters of the deceased parents entitled to a 1/4th share each in the securities — imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Respondent payable to each Petitioner, and left the Petitioners at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings against the Respondent for the false statements made in the Testamentary Petition. Interim Application No. 872 of 2025 was de-tagged.

¶1

Digitally signed by MULEY MULEY SHUBHAM SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO PRAVINRAO Date: 2025.04.05 15:44:44 +0530

¶2

1 58-MPT-151-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 151 OF 2025

¶6

¶7

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 2286 OF 2024

¶8

Pankaja Anil Mandhle & Anr. ...Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Tushar Shrikant Mangeshikar ...Respondent

¶11

WITH

¶12

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 872 OF 2025

¶13

Adv. Anusya Raghavan i/by Joy Legal Consultants for the Petitioners. Adv. Sukruta Chimalker a/w Tushar Mangeshikar for the Respondent.

¶14

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

¶15

DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2025

¶16

P.C.:-

¶17

The captioned Miscellaneous Petition seeks the following reliefs:-

¶18

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to cancel the Succession Certificate granted to the Respondent (Original Petitioner) falsely claiming to be the sole legal heir;

¶19

(b) Necessary costs be imposed on the Respondent for making false statements on oath;

¶20

(c) That Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Petitioners are the daughters of Mrs. Shalini Shrikant Mangeshikar and Dr. Shrikant Nagappa

¶21

1/3

¶22

Shubham

¶23

2 58-MPT-151-2025.doc

¶24

Mangeshikar and are entitled for 1/4^th share each in the securities of the father and mother since deceased;”

¶25

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the captioned Testamentary Petition had been filed willfully and deliberately suppressing the fact that the Petitioners were also legal heirs of the deceased namely Mrs. Shalini Shrikant Mangeshikar and Dr. Shrikant Nagappa Mangeshikar, being the daughters of the deceased. She submits that it was on this basis of this false assertion that the Court proceeded to grant the Testamentary Petition without citation being issued to the Petitioners. Learned Counsel submits that the daughters of the deceased, the Petitioners are entitled to a 1/4 th share each in the securities of their deceased parents. It is thus that she submits that the Succession Certificate granted by this Court to the Respondent be cancelled and also presses for costs in view of the fact that the Petitioners had to incur legal expenses on account of the conduct of the Respondent.

¶26

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent does not dispute what has been submitted. She, however, tenders an unconditional apology. She submits that the names of the Petitioners were not deliberately suppressed, but had not been mentioned in the Petition only because the Petitioners reside overseas. She submits that the Respondent had green intentions of equally distributing the shares and securities of the deceased parents of the Petitioners. She submits that the Respondent had every intention of giving the

¶27

2/3

¶28

Shubham

¶29

3 58-MPT-151-2025.doc

¶30

Petitioners their respective 1/4th share in the shares and securities of the deceased parents.

¶31

Having due regard to the submissions made and the fact that it is not today disputed before me that the Succession Certificate had been obtained on a false pretext, the same is required to be forthwith cancelled. Hence, the Miscellaneous Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), (b) and (c) reproduced above. I find that the costs must necessarily paid. Hence, the Respondent shall pay Petitioners costs of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The Petitioners will be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings against the Respondent in regard to the false statement/s made in the captioned Testamentary Petition.

¶32

The captioned Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

Interim Application No.872 of 2025 be de-tagged.

¶34

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶35

3/3

¶36

Shubham

Pankaja Anil Mandhle and Anr. v. Tushar Shrikant Mangeshikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaja Anil Mandhle and Anr. v. Tushar Shrikant Mangeshikar

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

Similar cases

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs Maandeo Motors India Private Limited

Shashikala Ramesh Sonar vs Shobhana Ravindra Potdar (Deceased)

Shaun Lee Loong Cheong Cooper vs Padam Dinshaw Cooper (Deceased)

Bisleri International Private Limited vs Ravi Kanth Kasala Proprietor of Devi Beverages

Sri.Gurunanak Darbar Borivali vs Shri Ramnagar Trust NO.1, a Charitable Trust Registered

Al Fara a Properties Private Limited vs Vijay Jairam Chauhan