Alice Teresa Dsouza vs Philomena Bridget Dsouza… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

Alice Teresa Dsouza vs Philomena Bridget Dsouza… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Letters of Administration with Will annexed ordered to be issued to the petitioner Alice Teresa D'Souza, renouncing the right of the executor Joseph Hillary Perira, as per the Rules, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, subject to office verification that no cross-petition is pending or caveat is filed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, alleged beneficiary under the Will of the deceased Testatrix, is entitled to a grant of Letters of Administration with Will annexed, particularly in view of the executor's failure to prove the Will. +4 more

Court's answer

The properties mentioned in Schedule-I of the petition are referred to in the Will.

Ratio / Principle

Execution of the Will is proved: the attesting witness Pradeep D'Souza deposed that the deceased signed the Testament in his presence; the court found enough evidence on record to accept execution, and recorded that all additions and alterations in the Will existed at the time of execution before signing, amounting to sufficient compliance of Rule 383 of the Rules.

Key takeaways

The delay in filing the petition has been explained by the petitioner vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.ratio¶7
Till date no one appeared to resist the petitioner's claim and nothing was brought to the court's notice regarding pending litigation pertaining to the same properties; accordingly the petition is treated as uncontested.ratio¶14
The legal heirs of the Testatrix have consented to the petition and thereby waived service of Citation; the petitioner affirmed there are no other legal heirs of the deceased except those mentioned in paragraph 09 of the petition.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Testamentary Petition No. 129.TP/3561/2025 (related WILL/1341/2025), High Court, Bombay — order dated 06.10.2025 by Shri P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, with the Testamentary Department. Alice Teresa D'Souza, beneficiary under the Will of Philomena Bridget D'Souza (Testatrix, died at Mumbai on 07.06.2018; Will duly executed at Mumbai on 22.12.2015 in English), sought Letters of Administration with Will annexed. The named executor, Joseph Hillary Perira, did not come forward to prove the Will and his right stood forfeited; an objection to the petitioner's capacity was set aside vide order dated 23.04.2025; delay was explained under Rule 382, Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. Execution of the Will was proved through the affidavit of attesting witness Pradeep D'Souza in Form No.102, who deposed that the Testatrix signed in his presence and that all additions/alterations pre-existed the signing — sufficient compliance of Rule 383. Citation was published per Rules 397(1) and (4) and notice given to the Collector per Rule 396; legal heirs consented and waived citation; other legatees consented; administration bond executed. The petition being uncontested, it was granted and Letters of Administration with Will annexed were ordered to be issued to the petitioner, renouncing the executor's right, with effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, subject to office verification that no cross-petition or caveat is pending.

1 129.TP/3561/2025

Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With the Testamentary Department Date: 06th October, 2025

FOR COMPLIANCE:

TP/3561/2025 P. C. : Shri. Shehzad A. K. Najam -es-Sani, Ld. Advocate with for the Petitioner WILL/1341/2025

1) This petition is filed by the petitioner, alleged to be beneficiary under the Will executed by Philomena Bridget D'Souza (herein after the same is referred to as “Testatrix”), for the grant of a Letters of Administration with Will annexed. Said Testatrix said to have died at Mumbai on 07/06/2018. Petitioner, namely Alice Teresa D'Souza, filed the copy of death certificate, identity proof of the testator, Will & petitioner's oath.

2) Perused petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for the petitioner. Perused documents.

3) The petitioner has explained the delay vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rule, 1980(for short “Rules”).

4) The executor, namely Joseph Hillary Perira has not come forward to prove the Will. Hence, upon the mentioning the matter before the Hon’ble Court, the right of the executor to prove the Will came to forfeited.

5) Capacity of the petitioner to present the Will was questioned. Upon mentioning the matter before the Hon’ble Court said objection has been set aside and the petitioner is permitted to proceed with the petition, vide order of the Hon’ble Court dated23.04.2025.

6) Petitioner stated that the deceased left behind her last Will and Testament, which was duly executed at Mumbai on 22.12.2015, in English language. The Will is handed in separately for being filed and kept in a safe place in the Office of the Prothonotary and Senior

2 129.TP/3561/2025

Master, High Court, Bombay.

7) Ld. The advocate for the petitioner submits that the Testatrix is survived by legal heirs, whose details are given in the petition’s paragraph No. 09, as per the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The petitioner affirmed that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased, except as mentioned in the petition. Legal heirs of the testatrix have consented to the petition and thereby waived the service of Citation.

8) Citation was issued, which has been duly affixed on the conspicuous part 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 treated as uncontested one.

9) The petitioner has filed the affidavit of Pradeep D’Souza one of attesting Witnesses to the Will, in form No.102 of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. He deposed that deceased signed the Testament in his presence. Hence, enough evidence is on record to accept the execution of the Will and petitioner is succeeded to prove the execution of Will. According to him all additions and alteration in a Will were existed at the time of execution before signing the Will. Hence, there is sufficient compliance of the Rule 383 of the Rules.

10) Properties mentioned in the schedule-I of the petition are referred in the Will.

11) Other legatees have given consent to grant Letters of Administration to petitioner.

12) Petitioner has executed the

3 129.TP/3561/2025

administration Bond in the prescribed format. Hence, following order:

ORDER

1) Petition is granted.

2) Office to issue Letters of

Administration with Will annexed to the petitioner, renouncing the right of the Executor namely Joseph Hillary Perira, as per the Rules, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra.

3) Before issuance of Letters of Administration with Will, the office to verify that there is no cross Petition is pending or caveat is filed. Office to act accordingly.

06th October, 2025

Officer on Special Duty,

with Testamentary Department