Allowed¶20

Anand Kantilal Deliwala v. Kantilal Vadilal Deliwala (Deceased)

Bombay HC27 Jan 2025TP/4535/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters of Administration with Will annexed; testamentary petition; Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980 - Rules 382, 396, 397(1)(4), 986; Form No. 102 affidavit of attesting witness; Hindu Succession Act 1956 legal heirs; caveat rejection; uncontested grant; Gujrathi Will translation affidavit; administration bond; grant effective throughout Maharashtra; testator Kantilal Vadial Deliwala; sole legatee Anand Deliwala; caveator Ram Deliwala.

What did the court decide?

Petition granted; Office to issue Letters of Administration with Will annexed to the petitioners as per the Rules, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, subject to the Office first verifying that no cross-petition is pending or caveat is filed; grant expedited in view of the order dated 07.10.2025 in IA/3350/2024. ¶20

Anand Kantilal Deliwala vs Kantilal Vadilal… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition is tenable where no executor has been appointed under the Will and the petitioners claim as representatives of the sole legatee under the Will. +5 more

¶10

Court's answer

The petition is tenable: no executor has been appointed under the Will and the petitioners are the representatives of the sole legatee under the Will.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The delay in the petition stands explained vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.

¶9

Key takeaways

Execution of the Will is accepted as proved: attesting witness Mansukhlala Bavisi, on affidavit in Form No. 102, deposed that the deceased signed the Testament in his presence, and the petitioners succeeded in proving the execution of the Will.ratio¶16
Citation was served on the non-consenting legal heir Ram Deliwala on 13.12.2024, and the caveat CTS(L)/10836/2024 filed by him was rejected vide Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Testamentary Department (Officer on Special Duty Shri P. A. Jagdale), order dated 04.11.2025 in 117.TP/4535/2024 (WILL/1808/2024): On a petition by Siddharth Anand Deliwala and Jubit Anand Deliwala, representatives of the sole legatee Anand Deliwala, for Letters of Administration with Will annexed of testator Kantilal Vadial Deliwala (died at Mumbai 02-08-2006; Will executed at Mumbai on 25.07.2000 in Gujrathi), the Court found: (i) no executor appointed under the Will and petitioners being representatives of the sole legatee, the petition is tenable; (ii) delay explained under Rule 382, Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980; (iii) execution of the Will proved on the affidavit of attesting witness Mansukhlala Bavisi in Form No. 102; (iv) citation served on non-consenting heir Ram Deliwala on 13.12.2024 and his caveat CTS(L)/10836/2024 rejected under Rule 986; (v) citation published and notice given to the Collector (Rules 397(1) and (4), and 396), no opposition, hence the petition treated as uncontested; (vi) affidavit filed certifying the Gujrathi translation as a true translation of the original pursuant to the order dated 31.10.2025 in TP No. 1263/2023; administration bond executed; Schedule-I properties correspond to those referred in the Will. Petition granted; Letters of Administration with Will annexed to issue having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, expedited per the order dated 07.10.2025 in IA/3350/2024.

¶1

2 117.TP/4535/2024

¶2

Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With the Testamentary Department Date: 04th November, 2025

¶3

FOR COMPLIANCE:

¶4

TP/4535/2024 ) Ms. Aarti Chaurasiya Ld. Advocate for the with ) Petitioner WILL/1808/2024 ) )

¶5

P. C.:

¶6

1) Petitioners, namely (1) Siddharth Anand Deliwala and (2) Jubit Anand Deliwala, filed this petition, being the representative of the sole legatee, namely Anand Deliwala, under the Will executed by Kantilal Vadial Deliwala (herein after the same is referred to as “Testator”), for the grant of a Letters of Administration with Will annexed. The Said Testator said to hav e died at Mumbai on 02-08-2006.

¶7

2) Earlier, Anand Deliwala filed the petition for the grant of the letters of administration in respect of the present Will. However, due to death of the said executor, present petition has been converted into Letters of Administration with Will Annexed, vide an order passed in the IA(L) 11433/2024.

¶8

3) Perused petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for the petitioner. Perused documents. Petitioners, filed the copy of death certificate, an identity proof of the testator, Will and petitioner's oath.

¶9

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

¶10

5) No executor has been appointed under the Will. The petitioner are the Representative of the sole legatee under the Will. Hence, the petition is tenable.

¶11

6) Petitioner stated that the deceased left behind his last Will and Testament, which was duly executed at Mumbai on 25.07.2000, in Gujrathi language. In view of the Order of the Hon’ble Court passed in the TP No. 1263/2023, on 31.10.2025, Ld. The advocate for the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the translation of the Will is a true translation as per the contents of the Original Will. The Will is handed in separately for being filed and kept in a safe place in the Office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay.

¶12

7) Ld. The advocate for the petitioner submits that the testator is survived by legal heirs, whose details are given in the petition’s paragraph No. 09 and 9A, as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The petitioner affirmed that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased, except as mentioned in the petition.

¶13

2 117.TP/4535/2024

¶14

8) Citation to non-consenting legal heirs of the deceased, namely Ram Deliwala, was issued and it has been Served him on 13.12.2024 by sheriff as per BHC Rules. Said heir had filed a Caveat having CTS(L)/10836/2024. However, it is rejected vide Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court ( O. S.) Rules, 1980.

¶15

9) 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.

¶16

10) The petitioner has filed the affidavit of Mansukhlala Bavisi 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.

¶17

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

¶18

12) Petitioner has executed the administration Bond in the prescribed format. Hence, following order:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1) Petition is granted.

¶21

2) Office to issue Letters of Administration with Will annexed to the petitioner, as per the Rules, having effect throughout State of Maharashtra.

¶22

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.

¶23

4) In view of the order dated 07.10.2025 passed in IA/3350/2024, the grant is expedited.

¶24

04th November, 2025 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department

Issues for consideration

6 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petition is tenable where no executor has been appointed under the Will and the petitioners claim as representatives of the sole legatee under the Will.¶10
The court held
The petition is tenable: no executor has been appointed under the Will and the petitioners are the representatives of the sole legatee under the Will.ratio¶10
2.
Whether the delay in filing/presenting the petition is duly explained under Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.¶9
The court held
The delay in the petition stands explained vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.ratio¶9
3.
Whether the execution of the Will by the testator is proved.¶16
The court held
Execution of the Will is accepted as proved: attesting witness Mansukhlala Bavisi, on affidavit in Form No. 102, deposed that the deceased signed the Testament in his presence, and the petitioners succeeded in proving the execution of the Will.ratio¶16
4.
Whether the prescribed citations and notices were duly issued, served and published, whether the caveat of the non-consenting heir was properly dealt with, and whether any opposition or competing litigation exists.¶15
The court held
Citation was served on the non-consenting legal heir Ram Deliwala on 13.12.2024, and the caveat CTS(L)/10836/2024 filed by him was rejected vide Rule 986 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980.ratio¶14
5.
Whether the translation of the Will, which was executed in Gujrathi language, is certified as a true translation of the original.¶11
The court held
In view of the order dated 31.10.2025 in TP No. 1263/2023, the petitioner's advocate filed an affidavit stating that the translation of the Will is a true translation as per the contents of the original Will.ratio¶11
6.
Whether the properties mentioned in Schedule-I of the petition are the properties referred to in the Will.¶17
The court held
The properties mentioned in Schedule-I of the petition are the properties referred to in the Will.ratio¶17

Anand Kantilal Deliwala v. Kantilal Vadilal Deliwala (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kantilal Deliwala v. Kantilal Vadilal Deliwala (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

Simon Harold Attwood vs Sibyl Beatrice Mitchell (Deceased)

Iqbal Ismail Momin and Anr. vs Asharafbi Ismail Momin (Deceased)

Vanita Anna Mendes vs Angela Rodrigues (Deceased)

Bhargav Vamanrao Chhatrapati and 2 Ors. vs Nirmal Vamanrao Chhatrapati Alias Nirmal Vamanrao Chharrtrapati (Deceased)

Hetal Thomas Mathew vs Panchal MANILAl Ranchhodji (Deceased)

Sushilaben Rameshchandra Shah vs Dalpatlal Purshottamdas Shah(Deceased)