Sunil Kishan Parwani v. Bhagwan Udharam Parwani

Bombay HC29 Jan 2026MPT/394/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 263 Indian Succession Act 1925 revocation of letters of administration; just cause; concealment of material fact; failure to cite legal heirs of deceased's son; grandson/legal heir omitted from testamentary petition; birth certificate and ration card as proof of relationship; Bombay High Court Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction; Misc. Petition No. 394 of 2025 in Testamentary Petition No. 1500 of 2017; Sharmila U. Deshmukh; 29 April 2026; surrender of original grant to Prothonotary and Senior Master; neutral citation 2026:BHC-OS:11245.

What did the court decide?

Letters of administration granted on 02.02.2024 in Testamentary Petition No. 1500 of 2017 revoked; Respondent directed to surrender the original letters of administration to the office of the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master on or before 10 June 2026. ¶¶42

Sunil Kishan Parwani vs Bhagwan Udharam Parwani — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the letters of administration granted on 02.02.2024 in Testamentary Petition No. 1500 of 2017 in respect of the estate of Udharam Amumal Parwani ought to be revoked under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for 'just cause', the Petitioner (legal heir of the deceased's son Kishan Parwani) not having been cited and Kishan Parwani not having been mentioned or pleaded in the Testamentary Petition.

¶¶15

Court's answer

There is no denial that Kishan was one of the sons of the deceased; Kishan expired on 04.02.2012 (after the deceased, who expired on 25.02.2008). At the time when succession was opened, the heirs of Kishan were entitled to a share in the estate of the deceased, and the legal heirs of the deceased Kishan were required to be cited.

¶¶29

Ratio / Principle

Even accepting that the Respondent was not aware of the son of Kishan, the Testamentary Petition should have pleaded about Kishan; the Affidavit-in-reply's assertions regarding Kishan's separation from his wife and absence of knowledge about the son do not assist the Respondent's case because there is no such pleading in the Testamentary Petition, nor even a plea that Kishan was a son of the deceased who expired on 04.02.2012.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

The Petitioner placed on record his birth certificate and ration card demonstrating his relationship with Kishan; it was necessary for the Respondent to cite the present Petitioner or at least plead about Kishan and his death.ratio¶¶35
Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides for revocation of grant for just cause; per its Explanation, just cause is deemed to exist where the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false submission or concealing from the Court something material to the case, and the illustration gives the example of failing to cite parties who ought to have been cited.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revocation of grant - S.263, Indian Succession Act, 1925: Letters of administration granted on 02.02.2024 in T.P. No. 1500 of 2017 over the estate of Udharam Amumal Parwani (expired 25.02.2008) revoked for 'just cause'. The Respondent's 2017 Testamentary Petition set out the heirs and next of kin in its paragraph 4 without any mention of the deceased's son Kishan Parwani (expired 04.02.2012) or of Kishan's son, the present Petitioner, who evidenced the relationship through his birth certificate and ration card; counsel for the Respondent admitted the Petitioner was not cited. Since succession opened on the deceased's death and the heirs of Kishan were entitled to a share of the estate, Kishan's legal heirs were required to be cited; the omission amounted to concealment from the Court of something material to the case, which the Explanation and illustration to S.263 deem to be 'just cause' for revocation. Respondent ordered to surrender the original grant to the Prothonotary and Senior Master by 10.06.2026. Single judge: Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. (29.04.2026).

¶1

2026:BHC-OS:11245

¶2

902 MPT-394-2025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶4

MISC. PETITION NO. 394 OF 2025 IN

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 1500 OF 2017

¶6

Sunil Kishan Parwani ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Bhagwan Udharam Parwani ...Respondent

¶9

Mr. Chintan Shah i/b Niyam Basin for Petitioner in MPT No. 14981 of 2025.

¶10

Mr. Sunil Kishan Parwani, Petitioner present in person. Mr. Sunil Kanojia for Respondents.

¶11

——————

¶12

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

¶13

DATE : 29^th APRIL, 2026

¶14

P. C. :

¶15

1. Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking revocation of letters of administration granted on 2^nd February, 2024 in Testamentary Petition No. 1500 of 2017 in respect of the property of the deceased Udharam Amumal Parwani.

¶16

2. The Petition pleads that the Petitioner is the son of Kishan Parwani and grandson of the deceased Udharam Amumal Parwani. The Respondent filed Testamentary Petition in the year 2017 seeking

¶17

1 of 5

¶18

Sairaj

¶19

902 MPT-394-2025.doc

¶20

letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased. The father of the Petitioner Kishan Udharam Parwani expired on 4^th February, 2012 whereas the deceased Udharam had expired on 25^th February, 2008. At the time of filing of the Testamentary Petition in 2017, the Petitioner who was the legal heir of Kishan Parwani was not cited and the Testamentary Petition does not plead about Kishan Parwani. The Petition further pleads that there were six children of deceased and only four children were cited in the Testamentary Petition.

¶21

3. In the Affidavit-in-reply, it is pleaded that name of all legal heirs of the deceased who were known to the Respondent were cited. The reply further denies that the Petitioner is the grandson of the deceased. It is contended that the Respondent’s brother Kishan Parwani was married to one Ms. Rekha and they were residing separately and subsequently, they were separated. The Respondent was informed by Kishan that he had divorced his wife and he was living alone and that the Respondent was not aware that there were any children born of wedlock and does not admit that the Petitioner is the son of Kishan.

¶22

4. Learned counsel appearing for Petitioner would point out to ration card in which the name of the present Petitioner is mentioned along with other family members. He would further point out birth

¶23

2 of 5

¶24

Sairaj

¶25

902 MPT-394-2025.doc

¶26

certificate of the Petitioner wherein the name of father Kishan Parwani has been mentioned. He submits that there is no pleading in the Testamentary Petition about Kishan Parwani.

¶27

5. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for Respondent admits that the present Petitioner was not cited. He submits that as the Respondent is not having knowledge about son of Kishan, he was not cited. He would deny that Petitioner is legal heir of Kishan. He submits that Kishan and his wife were separated and there was no information about child being born of said wedlock.

¶28

6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶29

7. The Testamentary Petition was filed by the Respondent and in paragraph no. 4 of the Petition, details about the heirs and next of kin of deceased are set out. Perusal of the said paragraph would indicate that there is no mention about Kishan Parwani. There is no denial to the fact that Kishan was one of the sons of the deceased. Kishan had expired on 4^th February, 2012 and the deceased Udharam had expired on 25^th February, 2008. At the time when succession was opened, the heirs of Kishan were entitled to the share in estate of the deceased and the legal heirs of the deceased-Kishan were required to be cited.

¶30

8. Even accepting that the Respondent was not aware of the son of Kishan, the Testamentary Petition should have pleaded about Kishan. The Testamentary Petition does not make any mention about Kishan

¶31

3 of 5

¶32

Sairaj

¶33

902 MPT-394-2025.doc

¶34

Parwani. The pleading in the present Affidavit-in-reply as regards the separation of Kishan from his wife and absence of any knowledge about the son does not assist case of the Respondent as there is no such pleading in the Testamentary Petition. It is not even pleaded that Kishan was one of the sons of the deceased who had expired on 4^th February, 2012.

¶35

9. The Petitioner has placed on record the birth certificate and the ration card in order to demonstrate the relationship with Kishan. It was necessary for the Respondent to cite the present Petitioner or at least plead about Kishan and his death.

¶36

10. The provisions of Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides for revocation of grant for just cause and Explanation provides that just cause shall be deemed to exist where the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false submission or concealing from the Court something material to the case. The illustration gives example of failing to cite the parties who ought to have been cited. For the purpose of obtaining grant, it was necessary for the Petitioner to plead about Kishan who was the son of Udharam. The provisions of Section 263 provides for revocation for just cause and in the present case, as there is concealment of material fact about Kishan, who was one of the legal heirs of the deceased, this is a fit case where power ought to be exercised under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act,

¶37

4 of 5

¶38

Sairaj

¶39

902 MPT-394-2025.doc

¶40

¶41

11. Resultantly, the Petition succeeds.

¶42

12. The letters of administration granted on 2^nd February, 2024 in Testamentary Petition No. 1500 of 2017 is revoked.

¶43

13. The Respondent is directed to surrender the original letters of administration to the office of learned Prothonotary and Senior Master on or before 10^th June, 2026.

¶44

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶45

5 of 5

¶46

Sairaj

Sunil Kishan Parwani v. Bhagwan Udharam Parwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kishan Parwani v. Bhagwan Udharam Parwani

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

Ajeet Madhukar Mulay vs Abhyudaya Co.Op. Bank Limited

A Navinchandra Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs the Board of Directors of Abhyudaya Co. Op Bank Limited

Chetan Bhanushali vs Dayal Nathalal Bhanushali

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs Phren Life Sciences Private Limited

Novex Communications Private Limited vs United Baroda Foundation

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs Phren Life Sciences Private Limited