Allowed¶14

Adi Keki Motafram v. Sorab Jeejeebhoy Divecha (Deceased)

Bombay HC10 Jan 2025TP/2237/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Probate; testamentary petition 13 TP/2237/2024; Will of Sorab Jeejeebhoy Divecha executed 23.09.1993 at Mumbai; petitioner-executor Adi Keki Motafram; proof of execution by substituted attesting witness Dr. Ardeshir T. Jagose under Rule 384, Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, original attesting witnesses V. S. Shetty and Dr. M. V. Shah expired; earlier petition TP No. 546 of 1997 dismissed under Rule 986; limited probate granted 23.07.2025 by Company Registrar/Testamentary Registrar Mrs. K. Y. Ambekar.

What did the court decide?

Grant of LIMITED Probate of the certified copy of the Will and Testament of the deceased Sorab Jeejeebhoy Divecha, to be issued by the Office after verifying that no cross petition or caveat is filed. ¶14

Adi Keki Motafram vs Sorab Jeejeebhoy Divecha (Deceased) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether execution of the Will could be proved, despite the expiry of both original attesting witnesses (V. S. Shetty, Advocate and Dr. M. V. Shah), by the affidavit of Dr. Ardeshir T. Jagose, who was present at the execution, filed as an attesting witness under Rule 384 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The affidavit of Dr. Ardeshir T. Jagose, filed as an attesting witness under Rule 384 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 to prove execution of the Will (both original attesting witnesses having expired), was accepted.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

All other legal formalities were found complied with and the petition was granted.

¶13

Key takeaways

The Office was directed to issue LIMITED Probate as prayed, after verifying whether any cross petition or caveat is filed.ratio¶14
As the legal heirs mentioned in para No. 8 of the petition are already dead, the Advocate was directed to take steps.obiter¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Testamentary Petition (13 TP/2237/2024) for probate of the certified copy of the last Will and Testament of Sorab Jeejeebhoy Divecha (died at Mumbai on 11.03.1995), executed at Mumbai on 23.09.1993, filed by executor Adi Keki Motafram. Of the four executors appointed under the Will, Minoo Darab Printer died c.1999-2000 and Rustom Salamat Irani died on 06.01.2006; co-executor Kashmira Ardeshir Jagose nee Kashmira Keki Motafram filed an affidavit dated 19.07.2025 reserving her rights as Executor. An earlier petition No. 546 of 1997 by the same petitioner was dismissed as per Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, and the certified copy of the Will was filed therein. As both original attesting witnesses (V. S. Shetty, Advocate and Dr. M. V. Shah) had expired, execution was proved by the affidavit of Dr. Ardeshir T. Jagose, who was present at the execution, under Rule 384 of the said Rules; the affidavit was accepted. With all legal formalities complied with, the petition was granted and the Office was directed to issue LIMITED Probate after verifying that no cross petition or caveat is filed. Decided 23.07.2025 by Mrs. K. Y. Ambekar, Company Registrar / Testamentary Registrar.

¶1

SLG

¶2

BEFORE : MRS. K. Y. AMBEKAR , COMPANY REGISTRAR / TESTAMENTARY REGISTRAR Date: 23^rd July, 2025

¶3

CALLED FOR COMPLIANCE :

¶4

13 TP/2237/2024

¶5

Mr. B. G. Saraf a/w. Suyash Kalbhor, Advocate for petitioner

¶6

PC : 1. Perused Petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for petitioner. This petition is for Probate of last certified copy of the Will and Testament of deceased filed by petitioner namely Adi Keki Motafram being one of the Executors named under the Will of deceased. The deceased namely Sorab Jeejeebhoy Divecha died at Mumbai on 11.03.1995. Copy of death certificate is annexed to the petition. Identification proof of deceased is not filed.

¶7

The deceased left behind his last Will and Testament which was duly executed at Mumbai on 23.09.1993. The said Will is in English language. The Para No. 1 of the Will refers to the appointment of Executors. Only four Executors appointed under the Will. Petitioner is one of the Executors. Petitioner has filed Affidavit dated 09.07.2025. In the said Affidavit, petitioner has stated that the other executors namely Kashmira Ardeshir Jagose nee Kashmira Keki Motafram has filed Affidavit dated 19.07.2025 reserving her rights as an Executor. Other executor namely Minoo Darab Printer died somewhere in the year 1999-2000 and remaining executor namely Rustom Salamat Irani died on 06.01.2006.

¶8

Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that parents of deceased predeceased the deceased. Deceased died as bachelor. Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that the legal heirs mentioned in para No. 8 of the petition are already died hence, Advocate to take steps.

¶9

Upon perusal of the petition, it is noticed that there is another petition No. 546 of 1997. Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that the present petitioner has filed the same petition for Probate as stated in para No. 9 of the petition and the same has been dismissed as per Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. Ld. Advocate for petitioner states that the certified copy of Will is filed in the TP No. 546 of 1997

……...2

SLG

– 2 –

Petitioner's oath is filed. The said Affidavit dated 19.07.2025 filed by petitioner states that the original Attesting Witnesses namely V. S. Shetty, Advocate and Dr. M. V. Shah have expired and therefore, the petitioner has filed Affidavit of one Dr. Ardeshir T. Jagose who was present at the time of execution of the Will and has filed the Affidavit as an Attesting Witness for proving execution of the said Will under Rule 384 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. The said Affidavit is accepted. Affidavit of Service of General Citation dated 30.05.2024 is filed. All other legal formalities are complied with. Hence, petition is granted.

¶14

Office to issue LIMITED Probate as prayed after verifying whether any cross petition is filed or whether any caveat is filed.

¶15

23.07.2025

¶16

COMPANY REGISTRAR / TESTAMENTARY REGISTRAR

Adi Keki Motafram v. Sorab Jeejeebhoy Divecha (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adi Keki Motafram v. Sorab Jeejeebhoy Divecha (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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Jamnaprasad Pandey Being Ca of (Gulabdhar Sarjuprasad Pandey) vs Sarjuprasad Deviprasad Pandey (Deceased)

Mayuri Sayaji Shelar vs Upendra Prabhakar Gadkary (Deceased)

Shyam Bhalchandra Basrur vs Chanrakant Laxmanrao Basrur (Deceased)

Bhargav Vamanrao Chhatrapati and 2 Ors. vs Nirmal Vamanrao Chhatrapati Alias Nirmal Vamanrao Chharrtrapati (Deceased)

Leena Veronica Furtado vs Raphael D Souza Alias Paphael D (Deceased)

Ganesh Ramchandra Ranjane vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Ranjane (Deceased)