Dilip Rajkrishna Manucha through His Duly… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

Dilip Rajkrishna Manucha through His Duly… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Letters of Administration (De-Bonis-Non) with Will annexed to the petitioner, as per the Rules, having effect throughout India, subject to the office verifying that no cross-petition is pending or caveat filed before issuance.

Issue for consideration

Tenability of a petition for Letters of Administration (De-Bonis-Non) with Will annexed filed by the constituted attorney of a legatee, after the executor who had obtained probate died without administering the estate. +5 more

Court's answer

The petition is tenable: the petitioner is the Constituted Attorney of DILIP RAJ MANUCHA, a legatee under the Will, and the executor Rajiv Raj Manucha who had obtained probate in TP/492/1996 died on 27.10.2018 before administering the properties.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has explained the delay vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule, 1980.

Key takeaways

Citation was duly affixed on the conspicuous part of the Hon'ble High Court and the notice board of the Collector's Office at Mumbai; 14 days expired under Rule 397(1) and (4) of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980, and an affidavit to that effect was filed; notice to the Collector was issued under Rule 396.ratio¶¶12
No one appeared to resist the claim of the petitioner and nothing was brought to notice regarding pending litigation pertaining to the same properties; hence the petition is treated as uncontested.ratio¶¶12
The Will is already proved in the earlier Testamentary Petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Testamentary Department (Officer on Special Duty), 26th August, 2025 — Petition 94.TP/1231/2025 for Letters of Administration (De-Bonis-Non) with Will annexed GRANTED. Testatrix Radha Raj Manucha (widow of late Rajkrishna Manucha) executed her Will at Mumbai on 30.12.1989 and was said to have died at Ontario, Canada on 07.10.1995 (¶4, ¶8). The executor Rajiv Raj Manucha had obtained probate in Testamentary Petition TP/492/1996 but died on 27.10.2018 before administering the properties; the petition filed by Ajit Jude Ireaneus Lobo, Constituted Attorney of legatee Dilip Raj Manucha, was accordingly held tenable (¶7). Delay explained under Rule 382, Bombay HC (OS) Rules, 1980 (¶6); citation affixed and 14 days expired under Rule 397(1) and (4), notice to Collector under Rule 396, with affidavit filed; no opposition — petition treated as uncontested (¶12). The Will was already proved in the earlier Testamentary Petition (¶13) and Schedule-I properties are referred to in the Will (¶14). Legal heirs consented and waived citation (¶11); representatives of the deceased executor — Laurie Bellamy, Ryan Manucha, Lucas Manucha, Bradley Manucha, Sean Manucha — gave consents (¶15); administration bond executed in prescribed form (¶16). Order: Letters of Administration (De-Bonis-Non) with Will annexed to issue with effect throughout India, after office verification that no cross-petition or caveat exists (¶18–¶21).

Issues for consideration

6 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Tenability of a petition for Letters of Administration (De-Bonis-Non) with Will annexed filed by the constituted attorney of a legatee, after the executor who had obtained probate died without administering the estate.¶¶7
The court held
The petition is tenable: the petitioner is the Constituted Attorney of DILIP RAJ MANUCHA, a legatee under the Will, and the executor Rajiv Raj Manucha who had obtained probate in TP/492/1996 died on 27.10.2018 before administering the properties.ratio¶¶7
2.
Whether the delay in presenting the petition is satisfactorily explained under Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.medium confidence¶¶6
The court held
The petitioner has explained the delay vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule, 1980.ratio¶¶6
3.
Whether citation, affidavit-of-affixture and notice-to-Collector formalities were completed, and whether anyone contested the claim or disclosed pending litigation concerning the properties.medium confidence¶¶12
The court held
Citation was duly affixed on the conspicuous part of the Hon'ble High Court and the notice board of the Collector's Office at Mumbai; 14 days expired under Rule 397(1) and (4) of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980, and an affidavit to that effect was filed; notice to the Collector was issued under Rule 396.ratio¶¶12
4.
Whether the Will relied upon in this petition is the Will already proved in the earlier Testamentary Petition.medium confidence¶¶13
The court held
The Will is already proved in the earlier Testamentary Petition.ratio¶¶13
5.
Whether the properties listed in Schedule-I of the petition are the properties referred to in the Will.medium confidence¶¶14
The court held
Properties mentioned in Schedule-I of the petition are referred to in the Will.ratio¶¶14
6.
Whether requisite consents of the legal heirs and of the other legatees (representatives of the deceased executor) were obtained for the grant.medium confidence¶¶15
The court held
Other legatees, namely representatives of Rajiv Raj Manucha (Laurie Bellamy, Ryan Manucha, Lucas Manucha, Bradley Manucha, Sean Manucha), have given consents to grant Letters of Administration to the petitioner.ratio¶¶15