Manohar Gopaldas Brahma vs Padma Hiranand Parsramani (Deceased)

¶1

2 91.TP/1751/2024

¶2

Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With the Testamentary Department Date: 19th November, 2025

¶3

FOR COMPLIANCE:

¶4

TP/1751/2024 ) Shri. Ajay Narkar Ld. Advocate for the [Original] ) Petitioner (ECHCBM02173392023) ) with ) WILL/1022/2024 )

¶5

P.C.:

¶6

1) Petitioner, namely MANOHAR GOPAL DAS BRAHMA, filed this petition, being the sole legatee under the Will executed by Padama Hirananad Parsramani (herein after the same is referred to as “Testator”), for the grant of a Letters of Administration with Will annexed. The Said Testator said to have died at Mumbai on 12-12-2012.

¶7

2) Perused petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for the petitioner. Perused documents. Petitioner, filed the copy of death certificate, an identity proof of the testator, Will & petitioner's oath.

¶8

3) The petitioner has explained the delay vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule, 1980(for short “Rules”).

¶9

4) No executor has been appointed under the Will. The petitioner is the legatee under the Will. Hence, the petition is tenable.

¶10

5) Petitioner stated that the deceased left behind his last Will and Testament, which was duly executed at on 13.02.1998, in English language. The Will is handed in separately for being filed and kept in a safe place in the Office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay.

¶11

6) Ld. The advocate for the petitioner submits that the testator is survived by legal heirs, whose details are given in the petition’s paragraph No. 08, as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Vide rider No.1, the petitioner states that there is no heirs of Husband of the deceased vide Sec. 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The petitioner claims to be brother of the deceased vide Sec. 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The petitioner affirmed that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased, except as mentioned in the petition.

¶12

7) 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

¶13

2 91.TP/1751/2024

¶14

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 treated as uncontested one.

¶15

8) The petitioner has filed the affidavit of Vijay Purshotamdas Sharma one of attesting Witnesses to the Will, in form No.102 of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. He deposed that deceased signed the Testament in his presence. Hence, enough evidence is on record to accept the execution of the Will and petitioner is succeeded to prove the execution of Will.

¶16

9) Properties mentioned in the schedule-I of the petition are referred in the Will.

¶17

10) Petitioner has executed the administration Bond in the prescribed format. Hence, following order:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1) Petition is granted.

¶20

2) Office to issue Letters of Administration with Will annexed to the petitioner, as per the Rules, having effect throughout State of Maharashtra.

¶21

3) Before issuance of Letters of Administration with Will, the office to verify that there is no cross Petition is pending or caveat is filed. Office to act accordingly.

¶22

19th November, 2025 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department

Manohar Gopaldas Brahma v. Padma Hiranand Parsramani (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Gopaldas Brahma v. Padma Hiranand Parsramani (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jim Sam Phillip vs Leelamma Sam (Deceased)

Rohiqa Cyrus Mistry vs Cyrus Pallonji Mistry

Commissioner Cgst Daman vs Biochem Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Dinesh Gulab Mirchandani vs Chitra Gulab Mirchandani (Deceased)

Shailesh Ravindra Donde vs Ravindra Shantaram Donde (Deceased)

Navneet Girish Gawde and 3 Ors. vs Girish Ziloo Gawde (Deceased)