Meera Rohidas Pandeshwar v. Usha Ravindra Patkar

Bombay HC7 Jul 2025TP/2941/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters of Administration; Indian Succession Act 1925; Hindu Succession Act 1956; testamentary petition; Bombay High Court Testamentary Department; Usha Ravindra Patkar estate; Meera Rohidas Pandeshwar; daughter as sole heir; uncontested petition; administrative bond exemption; Rule 396 and Rule 397(1)(4) Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules 1980; citation and Collector's notice; TP Nos. 2556 & 2559 of 2022; TP/2918/2023; Rule 382 delay explanation.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration granted to the petitioner for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, subject to: (i) the petitioner filing an account as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath within the stipulated period; and (ii) before issuance of the grant, the office verifying that no cross-petition is pending or caveat resisting the petition is filed.

Meera Rohidas Pandeshwar vs Usha Ravindra Patkar — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶Order 1

Issue for consideration

Whether Letters of Administration should be granted to the petitioner for the properties left by the deceased Usha Ravindra Patkar under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The petition was treated as uncontested because, till the date of the order, no one appeared to resist the petitioner's claim and nothing was brought to the notice regarding any pending litigation pertaining to the same properties.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The facts stated by the petitioner on oath remained unchallenged and were therefore required to be accepted.

¶6

Key takeaways

The petition was allowed and Letters of Administration were ordered to be granted to the petitioner for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in the prescribed format under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.ratio¶Order 1
In view of the orders in TP Nos. 2556 & 2559 of 2022 dated 28.02.2023 and in TP/2918/2023, the petitioner, being the sole heir of the deceased, was exempted from furnishing the administrative bond.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Testamentary Petition (60.TP/2941/2025), Bombay High Court, Testamentary Department (Officer on Special Duty, Shri. P. A. Jagdale), decided 19th September, 2025. Petition by Meera Rohidas Pandeshwar, daughter of the deceased Usha Ravindra Patkar (a widow who died on 18/06/2014 at Mumbai), for Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of the properties in Schedule-I. Citation was affixed on the High Court and Collector's Office, Mumbai notice boards and 14 days expired (Rules 397(1) and (4)); notice to the Collector was issued (Rule 396); delay explained (Rule 382). Nobody contested the claim and no pending litigation concerning the properties was brought to notice, so the petition was treated as uncontested and the facts on oath accepted. Following prior orders in TP Nos. 2556 & 2559 of 2022 dated 28.02.2023 and TP/2918/2023, the petitioner as sole heir was exempted from furnishing the administrative bond. Petition allowed; Letters of Administration granted, subject to the office verifying absence of any cross-petition or caveat before issuance of the grant and to the petitioner filing an account as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath.

¶1

1 60.TP/2941/2025

¶2

Before :Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date 19th September, 2025

¶3

FOR COMPLIANCE:

¶4

TP/2941/2025 P. Shri. P N Mishra Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner C. : (AMH20230011309 C202500006)

¶5

This is a petition for grant of Letters of Administration, under the Provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “IS Act”) for the properties left by the deceased, namely Usha Ravindra Patkar, (For short “Said deceased”). The petitioner, namely Meera Rohidas Pandeshwar, has filed documents.

¶6

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 Widow on 18/06/2014 at Mumbai leaving behind her 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. 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 60.TP/2941/2025

¶10

treated as uncontested one.

¶11

In view of order passed by the Hon’ble Court in TP Nos. 2556 & 2559 of 2022 dated 28.02.2023 and in TP/2918/2023, the petitioner being the sole heir of the deceased is exempted from furnishing the administrative bond.

¶12

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

19th September, 2025 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department

Meera Rohidas Pandeshwar v. Usha Ravindra Patkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Rohidas Pandeshwar v. Usha Ravindra Patkar

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

Yamini U Shah vs Kiran Dhansukhlal Gheewala (Deceased)

Nayna Dilip Desai vs Dilip Manharlal Desai (Deceased)

Dr Kinjal Narendra Suratwala vs Prakash Ratilal Suratwala (Deceased)

Dastin Harry Masilamani Constituted Poa Holder of Ossie Maryan Masilamani vs Monty Harry Masilamani (Deceased)

Geeta Rao D/o Surendra Rao alias Geeta Surendra Pratap Rao vs Kushla Rao alias Kushla Surendra Pratap Rao (Deceased)

Khairunisa Sharafat Ali Sayed Alias Khairunnisa Sharafat Ali Sayed vs Dilshad Begum Mohd. Asgar Taqui Alias Dilshad Begum Taqi (Deceased)