SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1504

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, J.
Rajesh Govindkumar Chandan and Others – Appellants
Versus
Kruti Chandresh Thakkar – Respondent
Interim Application (L) No. 29752 of 2021, Miscellaneous Petition (L) No. 29749 of 2021, Testamentary Petition No. 490 of 2019
Decided On : 06-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Siddhima Kotak, Jenifer Mogrelia, Vinit Udernani, Vashi.
For the Respondents: Mayur Khandeparkar, Ativ Patel, Viloma Shah, Harshad R. Vyas.

The duty of parties to come forward with a true case and true evidence, and the significance of prompt action in seeking probate of a Will.

Headnote:

Revocation of Letters of Administration - Fraudulent Obtaining - Indian Succession Act - Section 263(b), S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and Others (1994) 1 SCC 1, Peter John D'Souza and Others vs. Armstrong Joseph D'Souza (2014), Perviz Sarosh Batliwalla vs. Viloo Plumber and Another (1999), Archana Arun Palav vs. Jennifer Michael and Others (2013), Prakash P. Bambardekar vs. Avinash Vishvanath Ajgaonkar (2013)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought revocation of letters of administration issued in favor of the respondent, alleging fraudulent obtaining of the letters by suppressing the existence of a Will executed by the deceased. The respondent, the married daughter of the deceased, denied the allegations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners failed to take prompt action in seeking probate of the alleged Will and that the respondent had already administered the estate and executed transfer deeds in favor of her father and husband. The court dismissed the petition for revocation of the grant of letters of administration.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent fraudulently obtained the letters of administration by suppressing the existence of the Will, and whether the petitioners had the legal standing to seek revocation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' delay in seeking probate of the alleged Will and the respondent's administration of the estate prior to the revocation petition weighed against the petitioners. The court also emphasized the duty of parties to come forward with a true case and true evidence.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for revocation of the grant of letters of administration, allowing the petitioners to pursue their claim in the pending probate petition.

ORDER :

1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking revocation of letters of administration issued on 19.07.2019 in favour of the respondent (original petitioner in Testamentary Petition No. 490 of 2019).

2. The petitioners herein alleged that the respondent fraudulently obtained the letters of administration pertaining to the estate of the deceased. By an interim application filed in the present petition, the petitioners have also sought interim reliefs.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is the brother of the deceased Archana Chandresh Thakkar, petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 is the son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.

4. The respondent is the married daughter of the deceased. It is stated that the respondent applied for grant of letters of administration, suppressing Will dated 17.10.2020 executed by the deceased. According to the petitioners, in terms of the said Will, they are entitled to part of the estate of the deceased, of which they stand deprived due to the fraudulent act of the respondent in obtaining the letters of administration from this Court without divulging all relevant information, including existence of the aforesaid Will dated 17.10.2020. The said allegations are denied by the respondent. Reply affidavit and rejoinder affidavit are filed in the interim application seeking interim reliefs and the learned counsel for the parties rely upon the statements made in such affidavits to support their respective contentions.

5. The chronology of events leading to filing of the present petition is that, on 24.01.2019, the deceased Archana Chandresh Thakkar passed away. It is the case of the petitioners, as stated in the interim application, that after the death of the deceased on 24.01.2019, when the respondent and her husband visited the residence of the petitioners on 31.01.2019, they were informed by the petitioners about the aforesaid Will dated 17.10.2020 executed by the deceased. It is also claimed in the interim application that during the said visit, photocopy of the said Will was handed over to the respondent and her husband. This assertion is specifically denied in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent.

6. On 06.02.2019, the respondent filed Testamentary Petition No. 490 of 2019 for grant of letters of administration pertaining to the estate of the deceased. In the said petition, the respondent asserted that the deceased died intestate and that despite diligent search, no Will could be found. It was also asserted that no application for grant of probate of the Will or for the grant of letters of administration with or without Will was filed in any Court. The details of the surviving legal heirs of the deceased i.e. the respondent being the daughter and the husband of the deceased were stated in the said petition.

7. On 28.05.2019, final order for issuance of letters of administration was passed in the said testamentary petition. On 09.07.2019, the grant was issued.

8. On 20.01.2020, petitioner No. 1 sent an e-mail to the respondent stating that a year had passed since the death of the deceased and that the proposed visit of the respondent was awaited. It was asserted that during the last visit of the said respondent in January, 2019, matters were not expedited and that being the executors, the petitioners were in discussion with their advocates. It was further stated that the petitioners would be assigning the matter for necessary legal process unless the respondent visited India and expedited the same at the earliest. On 26.01.2020, the respondent sent an e-mail to petitioner No. 1 (her maternal uncle), stating that as she had mentioned about a year ago, she was disputing the Will propounded by petitioner No. 1. It was claimed that the deceased had confirmed multiple times that she had never executed any Will. It was specifically stated thereafter that the respondent had already taken appropriate legal remedies in respect of the estate of the deceased and a request was made

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top