Khemraj Omprakash Rajput v. Kusum Ruhela @ Kusum Sohanpal Ruhela (Deceased)

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026TP/906/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters of Administration with Will annexed; testamentary petition by legatee; no executor appointed; Will executed 09.10.2015 Mumbai; testatrix died 24-07-2016; Rule 382 delay explanation; Rule 383 additions and alterations; Form No. 102 attesting witness affidavit; Rule 396 notice to Collector; Rule 397(1) and (4) citation; Section 15(1)(b) Hindu Succession Act heirs of husband; Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh AIR 1987 SC 1616; uncontested petition; consent of legatees; administration bond; effect throughout Maharashtra.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration with Will annexed issued to the petitioner Khemraj Omprakash Rajput, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra, subject to the Office verifying that no cross-petition is pending or caveat filed. ¶¶20

Khemraj Omprakash Rajput vs Kusum Ruhela @ Kusum… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition by a legatee is tenable when no executor has been appointed under the Will. +3 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

Since no executor has been appointed under the Will and the petitioner is one of the legatees, the petition for Letters of Administration with Will annexed is tenable.

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

Execution of the Will stands proved: the affidavit of attesting witness Sanjukta Nath (Form No. 102) establishes that the deceased signed the testament in her presence in a sound state of mind, and that all additions and alterations existed at the time of execution, satisfying Rule 383 of the Rules.

¶¶15

Key takeaways

The delay in presenting the petition has been explained vide Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.ratio¶¶8
The stepsons and step-daughters named at serial nos. 2 to 6 of the legal heirs table are heirs of the husband within the meaning of Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh & Others.ratio¶¶11
As no one appeared to resist the petitioner's claim and nothing adverse regarding pending litigation over the same properties was brought to notice despite citation and notice to the Collector, the petition is treated as uncontested.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Testamentary Department) grants Letters of Administration with Will annexed to Khemraj Omprakash Rajput, a legatee under the Will of Kusum Ruhela alias Kusum Sohanpal Ruhela, who died at Mumbai on 24-07-2016 leaving a Will duly executed at Mumbai on 09.10.2015 in English. As no executor was appointed, the petition by a legatee is held tenable. Delay in filing is explained under Rule 382, Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. The stepsons and step-daughters at serial nos. 2 to 6 of the heirs table are taken as heirs of the husband within the meaning of Section 15(1)(b), Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applying the law laid down in Lachman Singh v. Kirpa Singh & Others (AIR 1987 SC 1616). Execution of the Will is proved through the affidavit of attesting witness Sanjukta Nath in Form No. 102, with compliance of Rule 383 regarding additions and alterations. Citation was issued and affixed, notice given to the Collector under Rule 396, and with no objection received the petition is treated as uncontested; the other legatees consented and the administration bond was executed. Letters of Administration with Will annexed ordered to issue with effect throughout the State of Maharashtra.

¶1

2 88.TP/906/2025

¶2

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

¶3

FOR COMPLIANCE:

¶4

TP/906/2025 ) Shri. Avinash Tadalapurkar Ld. Advocate for with ) the Petitioner WILL/364/2025 )

¶5

P.C.:

¶6

1) Petitioner, namely Khemraj Omprakash Rajput, filed this petition, being the one of the legatee under the Will executed by Kusum Ruhela alias Kusum Sohanpal Ruhela (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 24-07-2016.

¶7

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, petitioner's oath.

¶8

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

¶9

4) No executor has been appointed under the Will. The petitioner is the one of the legatee under the Will. Hence, the petition is tenable.

¶10

5) Petitioner stated that the deceased left behind her last Will and Testament, which was duly executed at Mumbai on 09.10.2015, 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.

¶11

6) Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Testatrix is survived by legal heirs, whose details are given in the petition’s paragraph No. 08, as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The names of the stepsons and step daughters are mentioned at serial no. 2 to 6 of in legal heirs table. These are the heirs of the husband within the meaning of the Section 15(1) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In this regard law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of LACHMAN SINGH Vs. KIRPA SINGH & OTHERS ( AIR 1987 SC 1616, 1987 SCR (2) 933) , is applicable. The petitioner affirmed that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased, except as mentioned in the petition. Legal heirs of the testatrix have consented to the petition and thereby waived the service of Citation.

¶12

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

¶13

2 88.TP/906/2025

¶14

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”) 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.

¶15

8) The petitioner has filed the affidavit of Sanjukta Nath one of attesting Witnesses to the Will, in form No.102 of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. She deposed that deceased signed the testament in her presence and she 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 her 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 383of the Rules.

¶16

9) Properties mentioned in the schedule-I of the petition are referred in the Will.

¶17

10) Other legatees, namely Girish, Mahesh, Bhagwan, Meera, Poonam, have given consent to grant Letters of Administration to petitioner.

¶18

11) Petitioner has executed the administration Bond in the prescribed format. Hence, following order:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1) Petition is granted.

¶21

2) Office to issue Letters of Administration with Will annexed to the petitioner, as per the Rules, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra.

¶22

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.

¶23

06th January 2026

¶24

Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department

Khemraj Omprakash Rajput v. Kusum Ruhela @ Kusum Sohanpal Ruhela (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khemraj Omprakash Rajput v. Kusum Ruhela @ Kusum Sohanpal Ruhela (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shishir Jitendra Dhebar vs Narendra Badrishankar Dhebar

Sneheet Shashank Sawant vs Vinata Bhaskar Sawant alias Vinta Bhaskar Sawant alias Vinita Bhaskar Sawant

Rajeshri Wamanrao Dhote vs Chandrajit Atmaram Ranavde alias Chandrajit Ranavde alias Chandrajit a Ranavde

Mahesh Gobindram Narang vs Late Arjun Hundraj Dadlani Alias Late Arjan Hundraj Dadlanim (Deceased)

Shonan Dhaval Wagh vs Late Vijay Chandrakant Katvi

Vishwas Anant Joshi vs Anant Raghunath Joshi