Allowed¶14

Sanjay Ganpat More v. Sumitra Ramchandra More

Bombay HC20 Jan 2025TP/2285/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters of Administration; Indian Succession Act 1925; Hindu Succession Act 1956; testamentary petition; Sumitra Ramchandra More; Sanjay Ganpat More; Shashikant Ganpat More; surety bond exemption; uncontested petition; Rule 382; Rule 396; Rule 397(1) and (4); Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules 1980; TP No. 2918/2023; 37.TP/2285/2024; P. A. Jagdale; R T Kharwar; 12th February 2025; death certificate; affidavit of service citation.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration granted to the petitioners for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in prescribed format under the Indian Succession Act, 1925; petitioners to file an account as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath within stipulated period; office to verify no cross-petition pending or caveat resisting the petition before issuance of the grant. ¶14

Sanjay Ganpat More vs Sumitra Ramchandra More — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

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

¶6

Court's answer

The petition was treated as uncontested since no one appeared to resist the claim and nothing was brought to notice regarding pending litigation pertaining to the same properties.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

As all legal heirs of the deceased are petitioners (in view of the order in TP No. 2918/2023), the petitioners were exempted from furnishing the surety bond.

¶11

Key takeaways

The facts stated by the petitioners on oath remained unchallenged and were required to be accepted; accordingly the petition deserved to be allowed as prayed for.ratio¶12
The petition was allowed and Letters of Administration were directed to be granted to the petitioners 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¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Testamentary Petition 37.TP/2285/2024, decided 12th February, 2025 by Shri P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, Testamentary Department: Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 were granted to petitioners Sanjay Ganpat More and Shashikant Ganpat More for the properties of the deceased Sumitra Ramchandra More, who died on 19/10/2007 at Mumbai. Citation was affixed on the Hon'ble High Court and Collector's Office notice boards, with 14 days expired vide Rule 397(1) and (4) of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980, notice issued to the Collector vide Rule 396, and delay explained vide Rule 382; no one appeared to resist the claim and no pending litigation was reported, so the petition was treated as uncontested. Since all legal heirs of the deceased were petitioners, they were exempted from furnishing the surety bond in view of the order in TP No. 2918/2023. Counsel for the petitioners had contended that, being brothers-in-law of the deceased, they were entitled to seek Letters of Administration under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

¶1

1 37.TP/2285/2024

¶2

Before :Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date 12th February, 2025

¶3

FOR COMPLIANCE:

¶4

TP/2285/2024 P. C. Shri. R T Kharwar Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner :

¶5

[Original]

¶6

(ECHCBM0201111 1) This is a petition for grant of Letters of Administration, 2024) under the Provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “IS Act”) for the properties left by the deceased, namely Sumitra Ramchandra More (For short “Said deceased”). The petitioners, namely (1) Sanjay Ganpat More (2) Shashikant Ganpat More, have filed documents. 2) 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.

¶7

Said deceased died as a Married on 19/10/2007 at Mumbai leaving behind her legal heirs, shown in the paragraph No. 4 of the petition. Petitioners state 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.

¶8

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 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

¶9

2 37.TP/2285/2024

¶10

treated as uncontested one.

¶11

In view of the Order, passed in the TP No. 2918/2023, the all legal heirs of the deceased are petitioners, and therefore they are exempted from the furnishing the surety Bond.

¶12

Ld. Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in view of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner, being Brother in laws of the deceased, are entitled to seek a Letters of Administration. Hence, facts stated by petitioners, on oath, remained unchallenged and required to be accepted. Accordingly, petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. Hence, following order:

¶13

ORDER

¶14

1. Petition is allowed and the Letters of Administration be granted to the petitioners for properties, left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in prescribed format as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

¶15

1. The petitioners to file an account as under taken in a Petitioner’s Oath within stipulated period.

¶16

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.

¶17

Officer on Special Duty,

¶18

12th February, 2025 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department

Sanjay Ganpat More v. Sumitra Ramchandra More

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Ganpat More v. Sumitra Ramchandra More

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dilip Jayantilal Morakhia vs Kanchanben Jayantilal Morakhia (Deceased)

Ajay Sarat Chandra Karmakar vs Sarat Chandra Karmakar (Deceased)

Ivan Stephen Anchan Son of Silas Anchan vs Silas Anchan (Deceased No 1)

Phalguni Kunaal Patel alias Phal Patel vs Sarojini Pramod Vyas Alias Sarojben Pramofkumar Vyas Alias Sarojben Pramodkumar Vyas (Deceased)

Auditra Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Offbeat Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Sumathi Somasekharan Nair vs K Somasekharan Nair (Deceased)