Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date: 28th April, 2025 FOR COMPLIANCE:

122. TP/3878/2024 P. C. : Ms. Pranali Raut i/b Rahul Singh Ld. Advocate [Original]

for the Petitioner (ECHCBM020999920

24)

1) This petition is filed by petitioner, being sole with beneficiary under the Will executed by WILL/1535/2024 Padmaja Chitrabhanu Pathak (herein after the same is referred to as “Testatrix”), for grant of a Letters of Administration with Will annexed. Said Testatrix said to have died at Navi Mumbai on 12-05-2015 Petitioner, namely Jayshri Shirish Chitre, filed the copy of death certificate, identity proof of the testator, Will, petitioner's oath.

2) Perused petition. Heard Ld. Advocate for petitioner. Perused documents.

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

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

5) Petitioner stated that the deceased left behind her last Will and Testament which was duly executed at on 21.03.2013, in English language. The original Will is handed in separately for being filed and kept in a safe place in the Office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay.

6) Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that parents of deceased predeceased Testatrix and testator was survived by legal heir, as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

7) Legal heirs of the testatrix is mentally Retired person and the petitioner has obtained certificate under the provisions of the National Trust Act, 1999. Ld. advocate for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of this certificate, the petitioner being the guardian had obtained a Letters of administration, in Testamentary Petition No. 2060/2018 Thereafter, this will found and therefore, the petitioner had taken out an Misc. Petition, having No. (L)8918/2024, and revoked the earlier grant. In the said petition, the Hon’ble Court vide an order dated 21.03.2024, has recognized the petitioner as the guardian of the said Keyur. In this regard, Ld. advocate for the petitioner, has pointed out the provision of the Sec. 14 and 15 of the Said Act. According to which, Guardian to be appointed vide Sec. 14 of the said Act and Duties of the Guardian is explained vide Sec. 15 of the Said Act. Sec. 15 of the said Act, is reproduced as under, -

“15. Duties of Guardian – Every person appointed as a guardian of a person with disability under this Chapter shall, wherever required, either have the care of such persons of disability and his property or be responsible for the maintenance of the person with disability”.

8) The petitioner has produced the certificate of appointment vide Ex. D issued u/s 14 of the Said Act. This certificate has been relied upon by this Court in earlier two Petitions and accepted the petitioner as a guardian of the son of the testatrix. On relying on the said Certificate, the petitioner has consented to the petition and thereby waived the service of Citation. The petitioner affirmed that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased.

9) Ld. advocate for the petitioner submitted that under the Will, the testatrix has not bequeathed any thing to the said Keyur. However, petitioner is appointed as a guardian of the said Keyur by the testatrix. Hence, soon after the death of the testatrix, the properties are vested into legatees. Ld. advocate further submitted that as no property is bequeathed to the Keyur, citation could have been issued to the said Keyur, which could have been served upon his Guardian. Ultimately, purpose of Rule 397 of the BHC Rules, would have been complied with. However, in the present petition, the petitioner and her husband, being the guardian of the said Keyur have filed joint affidavit and consented for the petition. Hence, mandate of Rule 397 of the BHC Rules is complied with. Hence, once the guardian gets knowledge of the pet