TP No. 4227 of 2025 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
1) Petition is allowed and the Letters of Administration be granted to the petitioner
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 4747. TP/4227/2025 (AMH20230024002C2025000 06) ) ) ) P.C.: 1) Petitioner, namely ABDUL SAYYAD ABDUL SAMAD SHAIKH, has applied for the grant of Letters of Administration, under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “IS Act”), for the properties left by the deceased…
Judgment
Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With the Testamentary Department Date 05rd March, 2026 Ms. Tabassum J. Khan Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner FOR COMPLIANCE:
TP/4227/2025 (AMH20230024002C2025000 06) ) ) ) P.C.: 1) Petitioner, namely ABDUL SAYYAD ABDUL SAMAD SHAIKH, has applied for the grant of Letters of Administration, under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short “IS Act”), for the properties left by the deceased, namely KAMRUNISA ABDUL SAMAD SHAIKH(For short “Said deceased”). 2) I have heard Ld. Advocate. I perused the documents, such as a true copy of the death certificate of the deceased, an affidavit with document to dispense with the requisition of an identity proof of the deceased, an oath in the prescribed format, affidavit of service citation. 3) Said deceased died as a Widow on 25-01-2022 at Mumbai leaving behind her legal heirs, shown in the paragraph No. 5 of the petition. Petitioner states that there are no other legal heirs to the deceased, except heirs shown in the petition. The deceased left properties shown in Schedule I of the petition.
4) Office issued Citation to all concern and same has been affixed on the Notice Board 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”). An affidavit to that effect has been filed. Notice to the collector has been issued vide Rule 396 of the BHC Rules. Till today, no one has appeared to resist the claim of the petitioner, nor has anything been brought to the notice regarding pending litigation about the same properties. Hence, the petition is treated as an uncontested one. 5) Legal heir of the deceased has consented by way of Affidavit to grant the prayer of the petitioner to grant a Letter of Administration, without reserving any right. The legal heir has accepted the facts regarding their relationship, inter se. 6) Petitioner has filed the administration Bond in the prescribed form No.
Operative part
118 with surety. 2 47.TP/4227/2025 7) Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in view of provisions of The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, the petitioner, being son of the deceased, is entitled to seek a Letters of Administration. Hence, facts stated by the petitioner and heirs of the deceased, on oath, remained unchallenged and required to be accepted. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for. Hence, following order: ORDER 1) Petition is allowed and the Letters of Administration be granted to the petitioner for properties, left by the deceased and shown in the schedule, in the prescribed format, having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 2) The petitioner to file an account as undertaken in a Petitioner’s Oath within the stipulated period. 3) Before issuance of the grant, the office to verify that there is no cross-petition pending or caveat resisting the petition is filed. 05rd March, 2026 with the Testamentary Department Officer on Special Duty,
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 1) Petition is allowed and the Letters of Administration be granted to the petitioner
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Succession Act, 1925; Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 05 Mar 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.