Faizan Ghazanfar Ali Khan vs Mehdi Ali Khan @ Mehdi Hussain Ali Khan (Deceased) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Faizan Ghazanfar Ali Khan vs Mehdi Ali Khan @ Mehdi Hussain Ali Khan (Deceased) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Letters of Administration with Will annexed issued to the petitioner, as per the Rules, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, subject to the Office verifying before issuance that no cross-petition is pending or caveat is filed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition for Letters of Administration with Will annexed is tenable where no executor has been appointed under the Will and the petitioner is one of the beneficiaries. +3 more

Court's answer

As no executor was appointed under the Will and the petitioner is one of the beneficiaries under the Will, the petition is tenable.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has sufficiently explained the delay in terms of Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.

Key takeaways

Execution of the Will is proved: death certificates of both attesting witnesses were filed (Exh. D2, pages 28-29), the affidavit of Ahmad Ali Khan under Rule 384 deposes that the deceased signed the Testament in his presence, and the signature of Mohd. Isha and thumb impression of Mohd. Yunus appear on pages 1 and 2 of the registered Will.ratio¶15
Citation was duly issued and affixed, notice was issued to the Collector under Rule 396, the 14-day period expired under Rule 397(1) and (4), and nobody appeared to resist the claim; accordingly the petition is treated as uncontested.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Testamentary Department (Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty) — 75.TP/2198/2024 (will file WILL/966/2024), decided 09th September, 2025. Testamentary petition by Faizan Ali Khan, stated to be the sole beneficiary under the Will of Mehdi Ali Khan (Testator), who died at Mumbai on 15.02.1991, for Letters of Administration with Will annexed. The Will was executed at Kunda, Dist.-Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh on 18.09.1990 in Hindi; copy of death certificate, identity proof of the testator, the Will with translation, and the petitioner's oath were filed; an affidavit verifying the translation as a true translation was filed in view of the Court's order in TP No. 1263/2023, and the Will was handed in for safe custody with the Prothonotary and Senior Master. Held: (i) no executor was appointed and the petitioner being one of the beneficiaries, the petition was tenable; (ii) the delay was explained vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980; (iii) both attesting witnesses being dead (death certificates at Exh. D2, pages 28-29), execution was proved by the affidavit of Ahmad Ali Khan under Rule 384 deposing that the deceased signed the Testament in his presence, and the signature of Mohd. Isha and thumb impression of Mohd. Yunus were pointed out on pages 1 and 2 of the registered Will; (iv) Schedule-I properties are referred to in the Will; (v) the legal heirs, whose details appear in paragraph No. 8 of the petition as per Muslim Personal Laws, consented and waived service of citation; (vi) citation was affixed on the High Court and Collector's Office notice boards, 14 days expired vide Rule 397(1) and (4), notice was issued to the Collector vide Rule 396, and no one appeared — the petition was uncontested. Petition granted; Office directed to issue Letters of Administration with Will annexed having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, upon verification that no cross-petition is pending or caveat is filed; administration bond executed in prescribed format.

3 75.TP/2198/2024

Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date: 09th September, 2025

FOR COMPLIANCE:

TP/2198/2024 P. C. : Shri. Pulkeshi Gaikwad i/b Dinesh Tiwari Ld. with Advocate for the Petitioner

WILL/966/2024

1) This petition is filed by petitioner, being sole beneficiary under the Will executed by Mehdi Ali Khan, (herein after the same is referred to as “Testator”), for grant of a Letters of Administration with Will annexed. Said Testator said to have died at Mumbai on 15.02.1991. Petitioner, namely Faizan Ali Khan, filed the copy of death certificate, identity proof of the testator, Will along with its translation, petitioner's oath.

2) Perused petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for petitioner. Perused documents.

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

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

5) Petitioner stated that the deceased left behind his last Will and Testament which was duly executed at Kunda, Dist- Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh on 18.09.1990, in Hindi language. In view of the Order of the Hon’ble Court passed in the TP No. 1263/2023, the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the translation of the Will is true translation as per the contents of the Original Will. 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.

6) Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that testator is survived by legal heirs, whose details are given in the petition’s paragraph No. 8 as per the provisions of Muslim Personal Laws. The petitioner affirmed that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased, except mentioned in the petition. Legal heirs of the testator

3 75.TP/2198/2024

have consented to the petition and thereby waived the service of Citation. Petitioners specifically stated that at the time of the death of the deceased only legal heirs were survived and these one shown the table given in paragraph no. 8 of the petition.

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 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.

8) The petitioner has filed death certificate of both the attesting witness to the Will at Exh. D2 and at page Nos. 28 and 29. He states that at the time of execution one Ahmad Ali Khan was present and therefore, vide Rule 384 of Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980, he has filed his affidavit to prove the Will. 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. Ld. advocate for the petitioner pointed out signature of Mohd. Isha and thumb impression of Mohd. Yunus attesting witnesses to the Will, on the page No.1 of the Will as well as on the page No.2 of the Will, at the time of registration of the Will with the office of Registration.

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

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

11)

ORDER

1) Petition is granted.

3 75.TP/2198/2024

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

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.

09th September, 2025 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department