Allowed¶15

Caneez Fatima Mirza v. hidayath ali mirza

Bombay HC9 Jan 2026TP/3934/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters of Administration; Indian Succession Act 1925; Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937; widow petitioner Caneez Fatima Mirza; deceased Hidayath Ali Mirza; Bombay High Court Testamentary Department; TP 43.TP/3934/2025; uncontested petition; citation Rule 397(1) and (4); Collector notice Rule 396; Rule 382 delay explained; administration bond Form No. 118; grant effective throughout Maharashtra; order dated 19 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration granted to the petitioner for the properties left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, subject to filing of an account as per the petitioner's oath and pre-grant office verification that no cross-petition is pending and no caveat has been filed. ¶15

Caneez Fatima Mirza vs hidayath ali mirza — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased Hidayath Ali Mirza, is entitled to seek and obtain Letters of Administration for the properties left by the deceased under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

¶13

Court's answer

Facts stated by the petitioner and the heir of the deceased, on oath, remained unchallenged and were required to be accepted; accordingly, the petition deserved to be allowed as prayed for.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Petition allowed: Letters of Administration to be granted to the petitioner for the 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.

¶15

Key takeaways

The petitioner is directed to file an account as undertaken in the Petitioner's Oath within the stipulated period.ratio¶16
Before issuance of the grant, the office is to verify that there is no cross-petition pending and no caveat resisting the petition has been filed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uncontested testamentary petition 43.TP/3934/2025 (Bombay High Court, Testamentary Department; Officer on Special Duty Shri. P. A. Jagdale; order dated 19th January 2026): Caneez Fatima Mirza, widow of Hidayath Ali Mirza (who died on 03-01-2018 at Mumbai leaving heirs listed in paragraph 5 of the petition), sought Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the properties shown in Schedule I of the petition, her entitlement being urged under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. Citation was issued and 14 days expired (Rule 397(1) and (4), Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980); notice was issued to the Collector (Rule 396); delay was explained (Rule 382); no objector, caveat or cross-petition surfaced; the legal heir consented by affidavit without reserving any right; and the administration bond was filed in Form No. 118 with surety. Petition allowed: Letters of Administration granted with effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, subject to the petitioner filing an account as undertaken in her oath and to office verification, before issuance of the grant, that no cross-petition is pending and no caveat resisting the petition has been filed.

¶1

1 43.TP/3934/2025

¶2

Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With the Testamentary Department Date 19th January 2026

¶3

FOR COMPLIANCE:

¶4

TP/3934/2025 ) Ms. Archana Gaware i/b V Y Sanglikar Ld. ) (AMH20240127504C2024000 Advocate for the Petitioner ) 01)

¶5

P.C.:

¶6

Petitioner, namely CANEEZ FATIMA MIRZA, has 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 Hidayath Ali Mirza(For short “Said deceased”).

¶7

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.

¶8

Said deceased died as a Married on 03-01-2018 at Mumbai leaving behind him legal heirs, shown in the paragraph No. 5 of the petition. Petitioner states 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Legal heir of the deceased has consented by way of Affidavit to grant the prayer of the petitioner to grant a Letter of Administration, without reserving any right. The legal heir has accepted the facts regarding their relationship, inter se.

¶11

Petitioner has filed the administration Bond in the prescribed form No. 118 with surety.

¶12

2 43.TP/3934/2025

¶13

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of provisions of the The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, the petitioner, being Widow of the deceased, is entitled to seek a Letters of Administration. Hence, facts stated by the petitioner and heir of the deceased, on oath, remained unchallenged and required to be accepted. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. Hence, following order:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1. Petition is allowed and the Letters of Administration be granted to the petitioner 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

19th January 2026 Officer on Special Duty, with the Testamentary Department

Caneez Fatima Mirza v. hidayath ali mirza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Caneez Fatima Mirza v. hidayath ali mirza

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

Claudine Camilo Geraldo Pereira vs Camilo Geraldo Assis Pereira Deceased

Jyoti Vinayak Mete vs Vinayak Tukaram Mete Since Deceased

Giri Gagan Khorana son of Manmohan Khorana vs Manmohan Khorana alias Manmohan Khorana son of Jaganath Khorana alias (Deceased)

Central Bank of India vs Mphasis Limited

Anuradha Anand Potdar vs Anand Vasantrao Potdar

Shirin Hasnoor Daruwalla vs Rustom Ruttonshaw Dalal