Sanjay Pandharinath Kotkar Alias Vani vs Sonabai… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

Sanjay Pandharinath Kotkar Alias Vani vs Sonabai… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Letters of Administration with the Will annexed issued to the petitioner Sanjay Pandharinath Kotkar alias Vani, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, subject to office verification that no cross petition or caveat is pending before issuance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition is tenable where no executor has been appointed under the Will and the petitioner is one of the legatees. +4 more

Court's answer

As no executor has been appointed under the Will and the petitioner is one of the legatees, the petition is tenable.

Ratio / Principle

The delay in presenting the petition has been explained by the petitioner vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.

Key takeaways

Execution of the Will is proved through the affidavit (Form No. 102) of attesting witness Jyoti Lakhate, who deposed that the deceased affixed her thumb impression in her presence after going through its contents; the additions and alterations existed at the time of execution and the contents were read over to the testatrix before signing, evidencing sufficient compliance of Rules 383 and 419.ratio¶14
After citation affixed on the High Court notice board and the Collector's Office, Mumbai, with 14 days expired under Rule 397(1) and (4), and notice to the Collector under Rule 396, no one appeared to resist the claim and no pending litigation concerning the same properties was brought to notice; the petition is treated as uncontested.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court, Bombay — Testamentary Petition 100.TP/63/2025 (compliance order dated 01.08.2025, Shri. P. A. Jagdale, OSD with Testamentary Department): Letters of Administration with Will annexed granted to petitioner Sanjay Pandharinath Kotkar alias Vani, a legatee-beneficiary under the Will duly executed at Mumbai on 13.11.2003 in English by Sonabai Baburao Wani Alias Sonanai W/o Baburao Kruparam Vani, who died at Mumbai on 19.11.2003. No executor was appointed; the petitioner being one of the legatees, the petition was held tenable. Delay in filing was explained vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. Execution of the Will was proved by the affidavit in Form No. 102 of attesting witness Jyoti Lakhate, who deposed that the deceased affixed her thumb impression in her presence after going through its contents, that all additions and alterations existed at the time of execution, and that the contents were read over to the testatrix — sufficing compliance of Rules 383 and 419. Citation was affixed on the High Court notice board and the Collector's Office, Mumbai, and 14 days expired (Rule 397(1) and (4)); notice was issued to the Collector (Rule 396); no one appeared in opposition and the petition was treated as uncontested. Legal heirs (per Sec. 15(1)(b) with Rule 3 of Sec. 16, Hindu Succession Act, 1956) consented and waived citation, and co-legatees Sunil and Chandrakant Pandharinath Kotkar alias Vani consented to the grant; Schedule-I properties correspond to those referred to in the Will; administration bond executed. ORDER: Petition granted; Office to issue Letters of Administration with Will annexed, effective throughout the State of Maharashtra, after verifying no cross petition is pending or caveat filed.

Issues for consideration

5 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petition is tenable where no executor has been appointed under the Will and the petitioner is one of the legatees.¶8
The court held
As no executor has been appointed under the Will and the petitioner is one of the legatees, the petition is tenable.ratio¶8
2.
Whether the delay in presenting the petition is adequately explained as per Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.¶7
The court held
The delay in presenting the petition has been explained by the petitioner vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.ratio¶7
3.
Whether the execution of the Will of the testatrix Sonabai Baburao Wani is duly proved.¶14
The court held
Execution of the Will is proved through the affidavit (Form No. 102) of attesting witness Jyoti Lakhate, who deposed that the deceased affixed her thumb impression in her presence after going through its contents; the additions and alterations existed at the time of execution and the contents were read over to the testatrix before signing, evidencing sufficient compliance of Rules 383 and 419.ratio¶14
4.
Whether the petition stands uncontested, with no opposition, caveat or pending litigation brought to notice.¶13
The court held
After citation affixed on the High Court notice board and the Collector's Office, Mumbai, with 14 days expired under Rule 397(1) and (4), and notice to the Collector under Rule 396, no one appeared to resist the claim and no pending litigation concerning the same properties was brought to notice; the petition is treated as uncontested.ratio¶13
5.
Whether Letters of Administration with the Will annexed should be granted to the petitioner, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra.¶21
The court held
The petition is granted; the Office is to issue Letters of Administration with the Will annexed to the petitioner, as per the Rules, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, and before issuance to verify that no cross petition is pending or caveat is filed; the petitioner has executed the administration bond in the prescribed format.ratio¶21