Harshad Madhusudan Patil vs Madhusudan Purushottam… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

Harshad Madhusudan Patil vs Madhusudan Purushottam… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Letters of Administration granted to the petitioners for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in prescribed format, as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925; petitioner to file account as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath within stipulated period; office to verify absence of any cross-petition or caveat before issuance of the grant.

Issue for consideration

Whether Letters of Administration should be granted to the petitioners, sons of the deceased Madhusudan Purushottam Patil, under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the properties left by the deceased.

Court's answer

Since citation was duly published and no one appeared to resist the claim nor anything was brought to notice regarding pending litigation pertaining to the same properties, the petition was treated as uncontested.

Ratio / Principle

All legal heirs of the deceased being the petitioners themselves, in view of the Order passed in TP No. 2918/2023 they were exempted from furnishing the surety bond.

Key takeaways

The facts stated by the petitioners and heirs of the deceased, on oath, remained unchallenged and were required to be accepted.ratio¶6
The petition was allowed and Letters of Administration were directed to be granted to the petitioner for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in prescribed format, as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.ratio¶ORDER 1

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uncontested testamentary petition — Letters of Administration — Indian Succession Act, 1925. Petitioners Harshad Madhusudan Patil and Samir Madhusudan Patil, sons of the deceased Madhusudan Purushottam Patil (who died as a widower on 31/01/2020 at Mumbai), sought Letters of Administration for the properties shown in Schedule-I of the petition. Delay explained vide Rule 382 of the Rules; citation duly affixed on the notice boards of the Hon'ble High Court and the Collector's Office, Mumbai, with 14 days expiring vide Rule 397(1) and (4) of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980, and notice issued to the Collector vide Rule 396; no objector appeared, so the petition was treated as uncontested. As all legal heirs of the deceased were the petitioners, they were exempted from furnishing the surety bond in view of the earlier Order in TP No. 2918/2023. Counsel relied on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for the sons' entitlement; the court found the facts stated on oath unchallenged and accepted them. Held: petition allowed; Letters of Administration granted for the scheduled properties; petitioner to file account as undertaken in the Oath; office to verify no pending cross-petition or caveat before issuance of the grant.

1 48.TP/1172/2024

Before :Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date 10th March 2025

FOR COMPLIANCE:

TP/1172/2024 P. Ms. Renuka Madhav i/b Siddhi Narvekar Ld. Advocate for C. : [Original] the Petitioner

[Original]

(ECHCBM0219570 2023)

This is a petition for grant of Letters of Administration, under the Provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “IS Act”) for the properties left by the deceased, namely Madhusudan Purushottam Patil (For short “Said deceased”). The petitioners, namely (1) Harshad Madhusudan Patil and (2) Samir Madhusudan Patil, have filed documents.

I have heard Ld. Advocate. I perused the documents, such as true copy of the death certificate of the deceased, identity proof of the deceased, oath in the prescribed format, affidavit of service citation.

Said deceased died as a Widower on 31/01/2020 at Mumbai leaving behind him legal heirs, shown in the paragraph No. 4 of the petition. Petitioners state that there are no other legal heirs to the deceased, except heirs shown in the petition. Deceased left properties shown in the schedule-I of the petition. The delay has been explained vide Rule 382 of the Rules.

Citation was issued, which has been duly affixed on the Notice Board of the Hon’ble High Court and notice board of the Collector’s Office at Mumbai and 14 days have been expired vide Rule 397(1) and (4) of the Bombay High Court(O.S.) Rules, 1980(for short “BHC Rules”) and an affidavit to that effect has been filed. Notice to collector has been issued vide Rule 396 of BHC Rules. Till today, no one appeared to resist the claim of the petitioner or nothing is brought to the notice regarding pending litigation

2 48.TP/1172/2024

pertaining to the same properties. Hence, the petition is treated as uncontested one.

In view of the Order, passed in the TP No. 2918/2023, the all-legal heirs of the deceased are petitioners, and therefore they are exempted from the furnishing the surety Bond.

Ld. Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in view of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner, being sons of the deceased, are entitled to seek a Letters of Administration. Hence, facts stated by petitioner and heirs of the deceased, on oath, remained unchallenged and required to be accepted. Accordingly, petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. Hence, following order:

ORDER

1. Petition is allowed and the Letters of Administration be granted to the petitioner for properties, left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in prescribed format as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

1. The petitioner to file an account as under taken in a Petitioner’s Oath within stipulated period.

1. Before issuance of the grant, the office to verify that there is no cross Petition is pending or caveat resisting the petition is filed.

10th March 2025 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department