Allowed¶16

Renu Kumar v. Mahesh Chandra Kumar (Deceased)

Bombay HC29 Jan 2025TP/227/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters of Administration; Indian Succession Act 1925; Hindu Succession Act 1956; widow as legal heir; Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules 1980 Rule 396, Rule 397(1) and (4); citation on notice board; Collector notice; administration bond Form No. 118; consent affidavits of legal heirs; uncontested testamentary petition; deceased Mahesh Chandra Kumar; petitioner Renu Mahesh Kumar; Testamentary Department; grant subject to account and caveat verification.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration granted to the petitioner for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in the prescribed format, subject to filing of account and office verification of no cross-petition or caveat before issuance of the grant. ¶16

Renu Kumar vs Mahesh Chandra Kumar (Deceased) — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, widow of the deceased Mahesh Chandra Kumar, is entitled to be granted Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the properties left by the deceased shown in Schedule I of the petition. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

The facts stated by the petitioner and the heirs of the deceased on oath remained unchallenged and were required to be accepted; accordingly the petition deserved to be allowed as prayed for.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

As no one appeared to resist the petitioner's claim and nothing was brought to notice regarding pending litigation about the same properties, the petition was treated as an uncontested one.

¶9

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and Letters of Administration are to be granted to the petitioner for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in the prescribed format as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.ratio¶16
The petitioner is directed to file an account, as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath, within the stipulated period.ratio¶17
Before issuance of the grant, the office is to verify that no cross-petition is pending and that no caveat resisting the petition has been filed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Testamentary Department (Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty), 03rd November 2025 — TP/227/2024: Uncontested testamentary petition by Renu Mahesh Kumar, widow of the deceased Mahesh Chandra Kumar (died 29-05-2021 at Mumbai), for Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the properties shown in Schedule I. Citation was duly affixed on the High Court and Collector's Office, Mumbai notice boards and the 14-day period under Rule 397(1) and (4) of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980 expired; notice to the Collector issued under Rule 396; no objection, caveat or pending litigation reported, so the petition was treated as uncontested. Legal heirs consented by affidavits without reserving any right; Administration Bond in prescribed Form No. 118 filed with surety. Counsel relied on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for the widow's entitlement. Held: petition allowed and Letters of Administration granted for the scheduled properties; petitioner to file account as undertaken in the oath; office to verify absence of cross-petition or caveat before issuance of the grant.

¶1

1 58.TP/227/2024

¶2

Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With the Testamentary Department Date 03rd November 2025

¶3

FOR COMPLIANCE:

¶4

TP/227/2024 P. C. : Ms. Mayura Maru Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner

¶5

P.C.:

¶6

Petitioner, namely Renu Mahesh Kumar, has filed this petition for the grant of Letters of Administration, under the Provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “IS Act”), for the properties left by the deceased, namely Mahesh Chandra Kumar (For short “Said deceased”).

¶7

I have heard Ld. Advocate. I perused the documents, such as a true copy of the death certificate of the deceased, an identity proof of the deceased, an oath in the prescribed format, affidavit of service citation.

¶8

Said deceased died as a Married on 29-05-2021 at Mumbai leaving behind him legal heirs, shown in the paragraph No. 4 of the petition. Petitioner states that there are no other legal heirs to the deceased, except heirs shown in the petition. The deceased left properties shown in Schedule I of the petition.

¶9

Citation was issued, which has been duly affixed on the Notice Board 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 the collector has been issued vide Rule 396 of the BHC Rules. Till today, no one has appeared to resist the claim of the petitioner, nor has anything been brought to the notice regarding pending litigation about the same properties. Hence, the petition is treated as an uncontested one.

¶10

Legal heirs of the deceased have consented by way of Affidavits to grant the prayer of the petitioner to grant Letters of Administration, without reserving any right. Legal heirs have accepted the facts regarding their relationship, inter se.

¶11

Petitioner has filed the administration Bond in the prescribed form No. 118 with surety.

¶12

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner, being Widow of the deceased, is entitled to seek a Letters of Administration. Hence, facts stated by the petitioner and heirs of

¶13

2 58.TP/227/2024

¶14

the deceased, on oath, remained unchallenged and required to be accepted. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. Hence, following order:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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 the prescribed format as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

¶17

1. The petitioner to file an account as undertaken in a Petitioner’s Oath within the stipulated period.

¶18

1. Before issuance of the grant, the office to verify that there is no cross-petition pending or caveat resisting the petition is filed.

¶19

03rd November 2025 Officer on Special Duty, with the Testamentary Department

Renu Kumar v. Mahesh Chandra Kumar (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Kumar v. Mahesh Chandra Kumar (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

Leena Robin Mehta vs Dhananjay Ramoobhai Thakkar (Deceased)

Shivakumar Mani S/o Muthusamy Mani vs Muthulaxmi Mani Konar (Deceased)

Deepak Chandrakant Thakkar vs Padma Alias Padma Chanrakant Thakkar

Khushroo Homi Lakdawala vs Minie Kersy Chinoy aka Mini Kersy Chinoy Deceased

Dnyaneshwar Vithhal Jagtap vs Shankar Kisan Jagtap - Deceased

Maher Sunil Padhiar vs Rita S. Padhiar (Deceased)