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

2024 Supreme(Bom) 420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Manish Pitale, J.
Dimple Rakesh Doshi - Petitioner
Versus
Jayshree Manmohandas Sanghavi - Deceased
Testamentary And Intestate Civil Jurisdiction Petition No. 2808 of 2023
With Will No.1146 of 2023 In Petition No.2808 of 2023
Decided On : 08-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rubin Vakil a/w. Mr. P. N. Vora i/b. M/s. Pramodkumar & Co.

Headnote:

Letters of Administration - Will - Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Section 222, Section 232) - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Section 222 and Section 232, and interpreted the subject Will to determine the status of the petitioner as an executor by implication. The court referred to various judgments to establish the principle that a person cannot be considered an executor by implication unless they have the right to receive for the estate what is due to it and to pay what is due from it. The court concluded that the petitioner cannot be said to be an executor even by implication, and therefore, the petition for grant of letters of administration with Will annexed is maintainable.

Fact of the Case:

The department sought an explanation as to why the present petition for grant of letters of administration with Will annexed is maintainable and why a probate petition has not been filed, based on the interpretation of the subject Will and Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner cannot be said to be an executor even by implication, and therefore, the petition for grant of letters of administration with Will annexed is maintainable.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner can be considered an executor by implication based on the subject Will and relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that a person cannot be considered an executor by implication unless they have the right to receive for the estate what is due to it and to pay what is due from it, as established in various judgments.

Final Decision: The court concluded that the petition for grant of letters of administration with Will annexed is maintainable, and all other objections have been removed by the petitioner, leading to an uncontested proceeding.

ORDER :

The present petition has been circulated before this Court in the light of a specific explanation sought by the department from the advocate for the petitioner in this petition filed for grant of letters of administration with Will annexed. The department has sought an explanation as to how the present petition is maintainable and why a probate petition has not been filed.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition for grant of letters of administration with Will annexed in the context of Will dated 29.05.2022. It appears that according to the department, considering the contents of the said Will, the petitioner has been appointed as an executor, and therefore, she ought to have filed a probate petition. Reference is made to Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Succession Act’). In order to appreciate the backdrop in which the said objection is raised by the department and explanation is called from the advocate for the petitioner, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the subject Will.

3. The relevant portion reads as follows:-

    “I hereby give, devise and bequeath my all movable and immovable property to my niece DIMPLE RAKESH DOSHI, aged about 48 years, residing at 7th Floor, Harmony Building, B-703, Nr. Pawandham, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (West), Mumbai - 400 067, after my death the said DIMPLE RAKESH DOSHI will be the sole and absolute owner of my movable and immovable property, the list annexed herewith and nobody shall have any right upon the said property and nobody can claim the same.

I hereby reiterate that after my death any or all property or investment being on my name be given to Dimple Rakesh Doshi and she will be the sole and absolute owner of all my movable and immovable property. Further, God Forbid in circumstances where after my death if something happens to my niece Dimple Rakesh Doshi and she no longer exist then all my aforementioned movable and immovable property shall be transferred to Rakesh Harshadrai Doshi (Husband of Dimple Doshi). In such case, he shall be the sole and absolute owner of all my property.

* * * *

Further, after my death out of the proceeds from investments made by me as mentioned in list of Movable property attached herewith (at that point in time whatever cash is fetched from such investments), except my investment in Pradhanmantri Senior Citizen Saving Scheme (Scss- 2004), I wish to transfer a certain amount to below mentioned family members (List of which is attached herewith for ease of reference). However, possession of all such investment documents shall first be given to Dimple Rakesh Doshi as mentioned above. Later, she is authorized to sell & distribute the proceeds to list of members as mentioned below.

In case, realized cash from such investment is less in comparison of my wish to transfer a certain amount to my Niece and Nephews as per the given list then Dimple is not under any obligation to pay full amount to mentioned Family members (my Niece & Nephews). Under such a situation she shall make the payment proportionately out of available cash realized from the mentioned investments.

I wish that her husband Rakesh Harshadrai Doshi shall assist, co-operate and help Dimple Rakesh Doshi, to implement this Will.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hands on this 29th day of May 2022 at Mumbai.”

4. The department is proceeding on the basis that the above-quoted contents of the Will indicate that the petitioner has been appointed as the executor by necessary implication.

5. Mr. Rubin Vakil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on a proper interpretation of the above-quoted portion of the Will and applying the relevant provisions of the Succession Act in the backdrop of relevant decisions rendered in that regard, it would be evident that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner cannot be said to have been appointed as an executor by necessary implication. In this r

          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