Udaykumar Sunder Patil vs Sunder Venkatraman Patil — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

Udaykumar Sunder Patil vs Sunder Venkatraman Patil — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Letters of Administration granted to petitioners Udaykumar Sunder Patil and Vinay Sunder Patil for the properties left by the deceased Sunder Venkatraman Patil and shown in the schedule (Schedule I), in the prescribed format, effective throughout the State of Maharashtra under the Indian Succession Act, 1925; subject to the petitioners filing an account as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath within the stipulated period and to office verification, before issuance of the grant, that no cross-petition is pending or caveat resisting the petition is filed.

Issue for consideration

Whether Letters of Administration should be granted to the petitioners, the sons of the deceased Sunder Venkatraman Patil, for the properties left by the deceased and shown in Schedule I, under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Ratio / Principle

Since no one appeared to resist the petitioners' claim and no pending litigation concerning the same properties was brought to notice, the petition is treated as an uncontested one.

Key takeaways

In view of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provisions invoked by counsel, and as the facts stated by the petitioners on oath remained unchallenged, those facts were required to be accepted and the petition deserved to be allowed as prayed for.ratio¶12
Petition allowed; Letters of Administration granted to the petitioners for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in the prescribed format, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uncontested testamentary petition under the Indian Succession Act, 1925: Letters of Administration granted (order dated 21-11-2025, by the Officer on Special Duty with the Testamentary Department) to the two sons of the late Sunder Venkatraman Patil — who died a married man on 16-04-2005 at Mumbai leaving the heirs listed in paragraph 4 of the petition — for the estate properties in Schedule I, the grant having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra. Citation duly affixed on the High Court and Collector's Office (Mumbai) notice boards with 14 days expired vide Rule 397(1) and (4), and Collector noticed vide Rule 396, of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980; no contestant or caveat appeared, so the petition was treated as uncontested and the facts sworn on oath accepted. Surety bond dispensed with because, per a prior order in TP No. 2918/2023, all legal heirs are petitioners; delay explained vide Rule 382 of the Rules. Entitlement rested on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (petitioners being sons of the deceased). Conditions: petitioners to file account as per their oath within the stipulated period, and office to verify no cross-petition/caveat before issuing the grant.

1 49.TP/2775/2025

Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With the Testamentary Department Date 21^st November, 2025

FOR COMPLIANCE:

TP/2775/2025 P. C. : Ms. Bhagyashree Dhamapurkar Ld. Advocate for (AMH2023005665 the Petitioner 7C202400006)

P.C.:

Petitioners, namely 1. UDAYKUMAR SUNDER PATIL & 2. VINAY SUNDER PATIL, have applied 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 SUNDER VENKATRAMAN PATIL (For short “Said deceased”). 2) 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.

Said deceased died as a married on 16-04-2005 at Mumbai leaving behind him 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. The deceased left properties shown in Schedule I of the petition. The delay has been explained vide Rule 382 of the Rules.

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.

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

Ld. Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in view of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner, being Sons of the deceased, are entitled

2 49.TP/2775/2025

to seek a Letters of Administration. Hence, facts stated by the petitioners, on oath, remained unchallenged and required to be accepted. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. Hence, following order:

ORDER

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 the prescribed format, having effect throughout the the State of Maharashtra as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

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

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

Officer on Special Duty,

21^st November, 2025 Officer on Special Duty, with the Testamentary Department