Bijal Paresh Rukhana and Anr. vs Paresh Tulsidas… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2026)

Bijal Paresh Rukhana and Anr. vs Paresh Tulsidas… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Letters of Administration to be 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, as per the Indian Succession Act, 1925; petitioners further directed 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 and no caveat resisting the petition is filed; petitioners to correct the amount in the administration bond as per form no. 118 r/w Rule 420 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980 and re-upload it, with corrections initialed by the petitioner, surety and notary.

Issue for consideration

Whether Letters of Administration should be granted to the petitioners, Bijal Paresh Rukhana and Nehha Paresh Rukhana, under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for the properties left by the deceased and shown in Schedule I of the petition. +1 more

Court's answer

No person appeared to resist the petitioners' claim, and no pending litigation concerning the scheduled properties had been brought to the court's notice.

Ratio / Principle

On that basis, the petition was treated as an uncontested one.

Key takeaways

The legal heir of the deceased consented by way of affidavit to the grant of a Letter of Administration without reserving any right.ratio¶11
Accepting the counsel's submission on the widow/daughter entitlement under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the court found that the facts stated on oath by the petitioners and the heir of the deceased had remained unchallenged and required to be accepted, and that the petition therefore deserved to be allowed as prayed for.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Testamentary Department) — Uncontested Letters of Administration petition allowed. Petitioners Bijal Paresh Rukhana (widow) and Nehha Paresh Rukhana (daughter) sought Letters of Administration under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the properties left by Paresh Tulsidas Rukhana (alias Pareshkumar Tulsidas Thakkar), who died on 28-08-2023 at Mumbai, the heirs and Schedule I properties being disclosed in the petition. Citation was affixed on the notice boards of the High Court and the Collector's Office, Mumbai, with the 14-day period expiring vide Rule 397(1) and (4) and notice served on the Collector vide Rule 396 of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, 1980; no objection or pending litigation surfaced. The legal heir consented by affidavit without reserving any right, and the administration bond was filed in prescribed Form No. 118 with surety. Finding the sworn facts unchallenged and required to be accepted, and endorsing the counsel's submission on the widow/daughter entitlement under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the court allowed the petition and ordered Letters of Administration with effect throughout Maharashtra, directing the petitioners to file the promised account, the office to confirm absence of cross-petition or caveat before issuance, and the petitioners to correct and re-upload the administration bond per Form No. 118 r/w Rule 420 with initials of petitioner, surety and notary.

1 47.TP/5831/2024

Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With the Testamentary Department Date 27th February, 2026

FOR COMPLIANCE:

TP/5831/2024 ) Ms. Kalyani Deshmukh i/b FZB Associates Ld. Advocate ) [Original] for the Petitioner )

(ECHCBM02136212024)

P.C.:

Petitioners, namely (1) Bijal Paresh Rukhana and (2) Nehha Paresh Rukhana, 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 Paresh Tulsidas Rukhana (alias Pareshkumar Tulsidas Thakkar) (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 married on 28-08-2023 at Mumbai leaving behind him 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.

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.

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.

Petitioners havefiled the administration Bond in prescribed form No. 118 with

2 47.TP/5831/2024

surety.

Ld. Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in view of provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioners No. 1 being widow and No. 2 being daughter of the deceased, are 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:

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 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.

1. Petitioner to correct the amount in administration bond and correct the same as per form no. 118 r/w Rule 420 of the Bombay High Court ( O. S.) Rules, 1980 and re-upload the same. Furthermore, corrections must be initialed by the petitioner, surety and notary.

Officer on Special Duty,

27th February, 2026 Officer on Special Duty, with the Testamentary Department