TP No. 1283 of 2024 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 18 Feb 2026
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 9191. TP/1283/2024 [Original] (ECHCBM02237162023) WILL/452/2024 ) ) ) ) ) P.C.: 1) Petitioner, namely Gayatri Anand Wagh, filed this petition for grant of Letters of Administration with Will Annexed, being the sole legatee under the Will executed by Durga Anand Wagh (herein after the same…
Judgment
Ms. Rajashri Nadiger Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner FOR COMPLIANCE:
TP/1283/2024 [Original] (ECHCBM02237162023) WILL/452/2024 ) ) ) ) ) P.C.: 1) Petitioner, namely Gayatri Anand Wagh, filed this petition for grant of Letters of Administration with Will Annexed, being the sole legatee under the Will executed by Durga Anand Wagh (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 05-10-2022. 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 and petitioner's oath. No executor has been appointed under the Will. The petitioner is the 3) one of the legatees under the Will. Hence, the petition is tenable. 4) Petitioner stated that the deceased left behind her last Will and Testament, which was duly executed at Mumbai on 23.09.2008, 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. 5) Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Testatrix is survived by petitioner and her son-Chaitanya Anand Wagh, as her legal heirs, whose details are given in the petition’s paragraph No. 09, as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The petitioner affirmed that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased, except as mentioned in the petition. Legal heir of the testatrix has consented to the petition and thereby waived the service of Citation. 6) 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 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 2 91.TP/1283/2024 one. 7) The petitioner has filed the affidavit of Chaitanya Anand Wagh, one of attesting Witnesses to the Will, in form No.102 of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. He deposed that deceased signed the Testament in his presence and the testatrix 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. 8) Properties mentioned in the schedule-I of the petition are referred in the Will. Petitioner has executed the administration Bond in the prescribed format. Hence, following order: 1) Petition is granted.
ORDER 2) Office to issue Letters of Administration with Will annexed to the petitioner, as per the Rules, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra. 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. 18th February, 2026 with Testamentary Department Officer on Special Duty,
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 18 Feb 2026.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.