Jatin Shrikant Nayak vs Moresh Ramrao Nayak… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

Jatin Shrikant Nayak vs Moresh Ramrao Nayak… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Letters of Administration granted to the petitioner for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in prescribed format under the Indian Succession Act, 1925; petitioner directed to file account as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath; office to verify no cross-petition or caveat before issuance of the grant.

Issue for consideration

Whether Letters of Administration should be granted to the petitioner, son of the deceased, for the properties left by the deceased under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. +1 more

Court's answer

As no one appeared to resist the petitioner's claim within the citation period and no pending litigation concerning the same properties was brought to notice, the petition was treated as uncontested.

Ratio / Principle

The facts stated by the petitioner on oath having remained unchallenged were required to be accepted, and the petition deserved to be allowed as prayed for.

Key takeaways

In view of the order in TP Nos. 2556 & 2559 of 2022 dated 28.02.2023, the petitioner, being the sole class-I heir of the deceased, was exempted from furnishing the administrative bond.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Testamentary Department (Officer on Special Duty, Shri. P. A. Jagdale), allowed Testamentary Petition No. 47.TP/1323/2024 on 06th January 2025. The petition by Jatin Shrikant Nayak, son of the deceased Moresh Ramrao Nayak alias Shrikant Ramrao Nayak, sought Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the properties left by the deceased and shown in Schedule-I. The deceased died as a widower on 12-04-2005 at Mumbai; the petitioner stated he was the sole class-I heir with no other legal heirs. Citation was affixed on the conspicuous part of the High Court and the Collector's Office notice board, Mumbai, and the 14-day period under Rule 397(1) and (4) of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980 expired without objection; notice to the Collector was issued under Rule 396; no one resisted the claim and no pending litigation was reported, so the petition was treated as uncontested. Applying the Court's order in TP Nos. 2556 & 2559 of 2022 dated 28.02.2023, the petitioner was exempted from furnishing the administrative bond as sole class-I heir. The facts stated on oath remaining unchallenged, the petition was allowed and Letters of Administration granted; the petitioner was directed to file the account as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath, and the office was directed to verify absence of any cross-petition or caveat before issuance of the grant.

1 47.TP/1323/2024

Before :Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date 06th January 2025

FOR COMPLIANCE:

TP/1323/2024 P. Shri. Prathamesh Chachad Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner C. :

[Original]

(ECHCBM02119952 023)

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 Moresh Ramrao Nayak alias Shrikant Ramrao Nayak (For short “Said deceased”). The petitioner, namely JATIN SHRIKANT NAYAK son of Moresh R. Nayak, has 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 12-04-2005 at Mumbai leaving behind him legal heirs, shown in the paragraph No. 8 of the petition. Petitioner states 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 conspicuous part 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 pertaining to the same properties. Hence, the petition is

2 47.TP/1323/2024

treated as uncontested one.

In view of order passed by the Hon’ble Court in TP Nos. 2556 & 2559 of 2022 dated 28.02.2023, the petitioner being the sole class-I heir of the deceased is exempted from furnishing the administrative bond.

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner, being Son of the deceased, is entitled to seek a Letters of Administration. 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:

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.

Officer on Special Duty,

06th January 2025 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department