2026:BHC-OS:447 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION MISC. PETITION NO. 109 OF 2017 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 509 OF 2013 Hemant Bhanushankar Vyas (since deceased, through LRs) ...Petitioners Versus Chetan Rajnikant Shah ...Respondent ——————

Mr. Ajay Panicker, Bina Karnaith i/b Ajay Law Associates for Petitioner.

Mr. Bhavik Lalan, Ms. Nipa Shah for Respondent.

——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Date : 7th January, 2026.

P. C. :

1. Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking revocation of grant of letters of administration with Will annexed dated 7^th May, 2015 obtained by the Respondent in Testamentary Petition No. 509 of 2013.

2. The deceased was one Dhrumanben Jagdishchandra Vyas who expired on 11^th April, 2012. The Petitioner is the brother-in-law of the deceased Dhrumanben i.e. brother of Jagdishchandra Vyas. The Respondent was the neighbor of the deceased, who propounded the Will dated 22^nd June, 2009 by way of Testamentary Petition No. 509 of

2013 and grant was issued on 7^th May, 2015. The Testamentary Petition states that the husband of the deceased had expired on 7^th January, 1993 and the deceased had left no issues. As per the knowledge of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is not aware of the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 15(1) (a) to (e) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and that the deceased left no surviving legal heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

3. Learned counsel appearing for Petitioner submits that there is an active concealment of material fact and fraud has been played on Court. He points out that the alleged Will dated 22^nd June, 2009 propounded by the Respondent itself mentions the present Petitioner and one Balumukund Bhanushanker Vyas as relatives of the deceased. He submits that even taking the alleged Will as it stands, the Respondent could not have made the statement in the Testamentary Petition that there are no legal heirs and no kin of the deceased. He would further submit that the Respondent is stranger to the family of the deceased and has fabricated the Will in order to usurp the property of the deceased. He would further point out that in Affidavit-in-reply filed to the present Petition, the Respondent has admitted that the relatives of the deceased were present at the time of death of the deceased and had performed certain rituals and other ceremony. He would further point out to the averment in Paragraph No. 5(l) of the Affidavit-in-reply that some of the relatives of deceased were knowing at the relevant time, that the deceased was residing with the Respondent. He would submit that the Respondent therefore, has specific knowledge about the relatives of the deceased and despite thereof, did not cite them in the Testamentary Petition. He would further submit that the Petitioner has discovered a subsequent Will of the deceased dated 5^th August, 2011 and by reason thereof also there is just cause for revocation.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent submits that the Petitioner is not the legal heir of the deceased as the Petitioner is the son of the step brother of Jagdishchandra Vyas and is not the legal heir of the deceased under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

6. This is yet another instance in which the Will has been propounded by stranger to the family and has obtained grant without citing legal heirs of the deceased. This is also yet another instance where the Department has issued the letters of administration with Will annexed in most casual manner without noticing that in the Will itself, the deceased has mentioned the name of the relatives including that of the present Petitioner. In such circumstances, it is expected that greater care and caution would be exercised by the Testamentary Department and objection would be raised as regards specific disclosures in respect o