Allowed¶26

Vinayak Manohar Salunke v. Manohar Ganaba Salunke (Decased)

Bombay HC17 Feb 2025TP/1316/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Succession Certificate; intestate succession; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 370 Indian Succession Act, 1925; testamentary petition; Bombay High Court Company Registrar / Testamentary Registrar; condonation of delay; consent affidavits of legal heirs; administration bond; general notice; affidavit of service; securities of deceased; Schedule-I; e-filing; deceased Manohar Ganaba Salunke; petitioner Vinayak Manohar Salunke.

What did the court decide?

Succession Certificate granted to petitioner Vinayak Manohar Salunke for the securities left by the deceased and shown in Schedule-I, subject to office verification for any cross petition or resisting affidavit, filing of an account as undertaken in the Administration Bond, and issuance after the deceased's identification proof is re-uploaded and approved by the Registry. ¶26

Vinayak Manohar Salunke vs Manohar Ganaba Salunke… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a Succession Certificate should be granted to the petitioner in respect of the securities of the deceased mentioned in Schedule-I annexed to the petition. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The petitioner has complied with the necessary requirements; the facts stated by the petitioner on oath remained unchallenged and were required to be accepted, so the petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Delay in filing the petition is condoned, the petitioner having been unaware of the need to obtain a Succession Certificate and having been recently advised to obtain it.

¶22

Key takeaways

Petition allowed and Succession Certificate granted to the petitioner for the securities left by the deceased and shown in Schedule-I, subject to: (i) office verification whether any cross petition is pending or affidavit resisting the petition is filed; (ii) petitioner filing an account as undertaken in the Administration Bond within the stipulated period, with endorsement on the bond subject to satisfaction of the Department; and (iii) issuance of the grant after filing of the deceased's identification proof on the Bombay High Court portal as undertaken and its approval by the Registry.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Testamentary Petition TP/1316/2024 (e-filing), Bombay High Court, before Mrs. R. V. Rane, Company Registrar / Testamentary Registrar, decided 17.02.2025. Petition by Vinayak Manohar Salunke, son of the deceased Manohar Ganaba Salunke (who died intestate at Mumbai on 13.02.2010, predeceased by his parents and wife), for a Succession Certificate in respect of securities listed in Schedule-I. The other legal heirs — son Milind Manohar Salunke and daughter Seema Shirish Thakur (nee Seema Manohar Salunke) — gave consent affidavits dated 05.09.2024 in favour of the petitioner. General Notice issued 03.05.2024; Affidavit of Service filed 24.05.2024; Administration Bond filed 22.08.2024. Delay in filing condoned. Counsel submitted there was no impediment under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Unchallenged facts on oath accepted; petition allowed and Succession Certificate granted, subject to office verification for cross petitions/resisting affidavits, filing of accounts per the Administration Bond, and re-upload and Registry approval of the deceased's identification proof.

¶1

SLG

¶2

BEFORE : MRS. R. V. RANE , COMPANY REGISTRAR / TESTAMENTARY REGISTRAR Date: 17^th February, 2025

¶3

FIRST ON BOARD :

¶4

4 TP/1316/2024 (E-filing)

¶5

Mrs. Siddharth Desai, Advocate for petitioner

¶6

PC : 1. Perused Petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for petitioner. Advocate for petitioner submits that the present petition is for Succession Certificate in respect of certain Securities belonging to the deceased namely Manohar Ganaba Salunke who died at Mumbai on 13.02.2010. Copy of death certificate is annexed to the petition as Exhibit -‘A’. Ld. Advocate for petitioner has produced the photocopy of identification proof of deceased, the same is verified and returned back to the Advocate for petitioner. Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits he has uploaded the identification proof of deceased thorough e-filing but the same is not reflected on the official portal of the Bombay High Court. Hence, Advocate for petitioner undertakes to re-upload the said identification proof of deceased. The said undertaking is accepted.

¶7

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that deceased ordinarily resided at 10, Anuchhaya, Opposite New India Staff Quarters, CDB Cross Lane, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 058, and left property within greater Mumbai, State of Maharashtra and elsewhere in India.

¶8

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that the said deceased died intestate and that due and diligent search has been made for the Will but none has been found.

¶9

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that deceased left behind his only legal heirs shown in the paragraph No. 4 of the petition, as per …….2

¶10

SLG

¶11

– 2 –

¶12

the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

¶13

5. Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that parents of deceased predeceased the deceased. Wife of deceased died on 06.11.2011. Deceased was survived by two sons namely Vinayak Manohar Salunke who is petitioner herein and Milind Manohar Salunke and one daughter namely Seema Shirish Thakur nee Seema Manohar Salunke. Save and except there are no other legal heirs and next of kind left by the deceased, which is mentioned at para no. 4 of the petition.

¶14

Ld. Advocate for petitioner further submits that Consent Afdavits of fi Milind Manohar Salunke dated 05.09.2024 and Seema Shirish Thakur nee Seema Manohar Salunke dated 05.09.2024 are f i led and they have given their consents in favour of petitioner namely Vinayak Manohar Salunke. The said consent Afdavits are f fi i led separately through e-f i ling.

¶15

Ld. Advocate for Petitioner submits that petitioner being son of deceased claims to be entitled for 1/3rd share in the estate left by the deceased.

¶16

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that, there is no impediment under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment to the grant of the certificate of the validity thereof if it was granted.

¶17

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that no application has been made to any District Court or District Delegate or to any High Court for probate of any Will of the said deceased or for letters of administration with or without the Will for annexed to their property and credits.

¶18

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that no application has been made to any District Court for Succession Certificate in respect of any debt …...3

¶19

SLG

¶20

– 3 –

¶21

or security belonging to the estate of the deceased.

¶22

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner was unaware of obtaining the Succession certificate and was recently been advised to obtain the same, hence the delay caused may kindly be condoned off. In view thereof, delay is condoned.

¶23

Advocate for the petitioner submits that the General Notice was issued on 03.05.2024 in the aforesaid matter. Advocate for the petitioner submits that Affidavit of Service dated 24.05.2024 for proving the service of General Notice filed through e-filing. Administration Bond dated 22.08.2024 is filed separately through e-filing.

¶24

This petition is filed for grant of Succession Certificate in respect to the securities which was mentioned in Schedule-I which is annexed to the petition. The petitioner has complied all the necessary compliance for grant of the Succession Certificate in favor of the petitioner. Hence, facts stated by petitioner, on oath, remained unchallenged and required to be accepted. Accordingly, petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. Hence, following order :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petition is allowed and the Succession Certificate be granted to the petitioner for certain securities left by the deceased and shown in the Schedule-I, in prescribed format.

¶27

Before issuance of the grant, the office to verify whether any cross Petition is pending or Affidavit resisting the petition is filed.

¶28

3) The petitioner to f i le an account as undertaken in the Administration Bond within stipulated period. Necessary endorsement be made on the Administration Bond, subject to satisfaction of the Department. …...4

¶29

SLG

¶30

– 4 –

¶31

4) Ofce to issue grant as soon as after f fi i ling of the identif i cation proof of deceased as per the undertaking given by the Advocate for petitioner on the ofcial portal of the Bombay High Court and the same is approved by the fi Registry.

¶32

17.02.2025

¶33

COMPANY REGISTRAR / TESTAMENTARY REGISTRAR

Vinayak Manohar Salunke v. Manohar Ganaba Salunke (Decased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak Manohar Salunke v. Manohar Ganaba Salunke (Decased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishnanand Sooryanarayan Turme vs Shalini Suryanarayan Turme (Deceased No. 1)

Sheela Subhash Mistry vs Subhash Uttamram Mistry (Deceased)

Subha Ramesh W/O Nallan Chakravarti Ramesh vs Kanakavalli Padmanabhan (Deceased No. 1)

Usha Keshav Shriyan and Anr. vs Girija Shama Rao (Deceased)

Rajendra Sitaram Desai vs Sitaram Narayan Desai (Deceased No 1)

Yuvraj Sunil Savant vs Sunil Dattajirao Savant