Dastin Harry Masilamani Constituted Poa Holder of… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2026)

Dastin Harry Masilamani Constituted Poa Holder of… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Letters of Administration with Will annexed to issue to the petitioner with effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, subject to the Office first verifying that no cross-petition is pending or caveat filed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition for Letters of Administration with Will annexed is tenable at the instance of the petitioner — a legatee and constituted attorney of the other legatees — where no executor has been appointed under the Will. +2 more

Court's answer

Since no executor was appointed under the Will and the petitioner is one of the legatees as well as the constituted attorney of the other legatees (Ossie Masilamani and Fredreick Harry Masilamani, as spelled in this paragraph), the petition is tenable.

Ratio / Principle

Execution of the Will was duly proved: attesting witness William Pereira deposed that the deceased signed the testament in his presence and the testatrix was in a sound state of mind, and that all additions and alterations existed at the time of execution before signing; this constitutes sufficient compliance of Rule 383 of the Rules.

Key takeaways

The delay in filing the petition stood explained under Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.ratio¶¶8
Citation having been duly issued and affixed, notice having gone to the Collector, and nobody having appeared to resist the claim, the petition was treated as uncontested.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Testamentary Petition 109.TP/1395/2024 (linked WILL/507/2024), Bombay High Court (Testamentary Department), decided 06th February, 2026 by Shri P. A. Jagdale, OSD — Petition by Dastin Harry Masilamani, legatee and constituted attorney of co-legatees Frederick Harry Masilamani and Ossie Maryan Masilamani, for Letters of Administration with Will annexed of Monty Harry Masilamani ('Testatrix'), who died at Mumbai on 29-07-2020. Will executed at Mumbai on 16.12.2019 in English; no executor appointed, so petition held tenable at the instance of the legatee/attorney. Execution proved through the affidavit of attesting witness William Pereira in Form No.102 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980: testatrix signed in the witness's presence, was in a sound state of mind, and all additions/alterations existed before signing (Rule 383 satisfied). Delay explained under Rule 382; citation published and Collector notified under Rules 397(1) and (4) and 396; heirs disclosed as three sons under the Indian Succession Act, 1925; administration bond executed; Schedule-I properties referred to in the Will. Uncontested — petition granted; Office to issue Letters of Administration having effect throughout Maharashtra after verifying no cross-petition or caveat is pending.

2 109.TP/1395/2024

Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With the Testamentary Department Date: 06th February, 2026

FOR COMPLIANCE:

109.TP/1395/2024 ) Mr. Praful Valvi i/b. Sharad Bhosle, Ld. [Original] ) Advocate for the Petitioner (ECHCBM02096012023) ) with WILL/507/2024

P.C.:

1) Petitioner, namely DASTIN HARRY MASILAMANI being legatee and being constituted attorney of FREDERICK HARRY MASILAMANI and constituted attorney of OSSIE MARYAN MASILAMANI, filed this petition for grant of Letters of Administration with Will Annexed, being the legatees under the Will executed by Monty Harry Masilamani (herein after the same is referred to as “Testatrix”), for the grant of a Letters of Administration with Will annexed. The Said Testatrix said to have died at Mumbai on 29-07-2020.

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

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

4) No executor has been appointed under the Will. The petitioner being the one of the legatees and being the constituted attorney of other legatees, namely Ossie Masilamani and Fredreick Harry Masilamani under the Will. Hence, the petition is tenable.

5) Petitioner stated that the deceased left behind her last Will and Testament, which was duly executed at Mumbai on 16.12.2019, in English language. The Will is handed over separately for being filed and kept in a safe place in the Office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay. 6) Ld. Advocate for the petitioners submit that the Testatrix is survived by her three sons, as her legal heirs, whose details are given in the petition’s paragraph No. 08, as per the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The petitioners affirmed that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased, except as mentioned in the petition.

7) Citation to all Concern was issued and same 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”)

2 109.TP/1395/2024

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.

8) The petitioners have filed the affidavit of William Pereira, 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 n in his presence and the testatrix was in sound state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. 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.

9) Properties mentioned in the schedule-I of the petition are referred in the Will. Petitioners have executed the 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, as per the Rules, having effect throughout 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 February, 2026

Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department