Varsha Sanjay Kanake vs late Suhasini Ramkant Kanake — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2026)

Varsha Sanjay Kanake vs late Suhasini Ramkant Kanake — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Letters of Administration granted to the petitioners for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in the prescribed format, having effect throughout the state of Maharashtra under the Indian Succession Act, 1925; petitioners to file an account as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath within the stipulated period; before issuance of the grant, the office to verify that no cross-petition is pending or caveat resisting the petition is filed.

Issue for consideration

Whether Letters of Administration should be granted to the petitioners under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the properties left by the deceased Suhasini Ramkant Kanake. +1 more

Court's answer

No one appeared to resist the claim and nothing was brought to the notice regarding pending litigation about the same properties; hence the petition was treated as an uncontested one.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the order passed in TP No. 2918/2023, all the legal heirs of the deceased being petitioners, they were exempted from furnishing the surety bond.

Key takeaways

The facts stated by the petitioners on oath remained unchallenged and were required to be accepted, whereby the submission that, in view of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioners as grandsons of the deceased are entitled to seek Letters of Administration stood accepted.ratio¶11
The petition deserved to be allowed as prayed for.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Testamentary Petition TP/345/2026 (Bombay High Court, Testamentary Department): uncontested petition for Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 by grandsons Pratik Sanjay Kanke and Pranay Ramakant Kanake of the deceased Suhasini Ramkant Kanake (widow, died 29-03-2020 at Pune) allowed. Citation issued and affixed on the notice boards of the High Court and the Collector's Office, Mumbai, with the 14-day period expired vide Rule 397(1) and (4) of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980, and notice issued to the Collector vide Rule 396; no one appeared to resist and no pending litigation was notified, so the petition was treated as uncontested. All legal heirs being petitioners, they were exempted from furnishing the surety bond in view of the order in TP No. 2918/2023. Facts stated on oath remained unchallenged and were accepted, the petitioners relying on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as grandsons of the deceased. Grant ordered to have effect throughout Maharashtra; petitioners to file an account as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath; office to verify absence of any cross-petition or caveat before issuance of the grant.

Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With the Testamentary Department Date 16th March, 2026

FOR COMPLIANCE:

) 62. TP/345/2026 Ms. Tanuja S Apte i/b Jitendra H. Oak Ld. (AMH20230043790C20240 ) Advocate for the Petitioner 0004) )

P.C.:

Petitioners, namely (1) Pratik Sanjay Kanke and (2) Pranay Ramakant Kanake, have applied for the grant of Letters of Administration, under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “IS Act”), for the properties left by the deceased, namely Suhasini Ramkant Kanake(For short “Said deceased”).

I have heard Ld. Advocate. I perused the documents, such as a true copy of the death certificate of the deceased, an identity proof of the deceased, an oath in the prescribed format, affidavit of service citation.

Said deceased died as a Widow on 29-03-2020 at Pune leaving behind her legal heirs, shown in the paragraph No. 4 of the petition. Petitioners state that there are no other legal heirs to the deceased, except heirs shown in the petition. The deceased left properties shown in Schedule I of the petition. The delay has been explained vide Rule 382 of the Rules.

Office issued Citation to all concern and same has been affixed on the Notice Board 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”). An affidavit to that effect has been filed. Notice to the collector has been issued vide Rule 396 of the BHC Rules. Till today, no one has appeared to resist the claim of the petitioner, nor has anything been brought to the notice regarding pending litigation about the same properties. Hence, the petition is treated as an uncontested one.

In view of the Order, passed in the TP No. 2918/2023, all the legal heirs of the deceased are petitioners, and therefore, they are exempted from furnishing the surety Bond.

Ld. Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in view of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioners, being grand sons of the deceased, are

entitled to seek a Letters of Administration. Hence, facts stated by the petitioners, on oath, remained unchallenged and required to be accepted. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. Hence, following order:

ORDER

1. Petition is allowed and the Letters of Administration be granted to the petitioners for properties, left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in the prescribed format, having effect throughout the state of Maharashtra as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

1. The petitioners to file an account as undertaken in a Petitioner’s Oath within the stipulated period.

1. Before issuance of the grant, the office to verify that there is no cross-petition pending or caveat resisting the petition is filed.

16th March, 2026 Officer on Special Duty, with the Testamentary Department