Uma Beri Widow Of Pradeep Beri v. Pradeep Beri S O Rup Lal Beri (Deceased)

1 15-TP 4739-24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.4739 OF 2024 Pradeep Beri s/o Rup Lal Beri alias Beri Pradeep Robert ... Deceased Uma Beri w/o Pradeep Beri ... Petitioner ----- Mr. Aarif Ali for the Petitioner.

----- CORAM :

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE DATE :

21ST MARCH 2025 MUGDHA MANOJ PARANJAPE Date: 2025.03.24 10:46:56 +0530 P.C. :

1.

The matter is on board seeking dispensation of the following requisition dated 19 th October 2024 raised by the Officer on Special Duty with Testamentary Department, which reads as follows: "2 Advocate to file an affidavit of Service of General Citation and also effect service upon non-consenting legal heirs, if any as per Rules 399 and 400 of BHC Rules and also justify the surety of non-consenting legal heirs, if any, and furnish Administration Bond for the gross amount as per Rule 420 of the BHC Rules, within one week after that, if there are other legal heir(s) other than the petitioner(s)."

2.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that difficulty in furnishing the administration bond, as directed, is that, there is no one present within the jurisdiction of this Court to furnish the Mugdha

2 15-TP 4739-24.doc administration bond in terms of Rule 420 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.

3.

A perusal of Rule 420 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 shows that the said Rule does not require the person furnishing the administration bond to be present or situated in Mumbai. 4.

Another Learned Single Judge of this Court, when considering the similar issue, has held in the case of Ashok Chanderbhan Choithani, Petitioner 1 as follows:

& Hansa Chanderbhan Choithani, Deceased "3.

The Petitioner has filed Petition for Letters of Administration as the mother in whose favour the Probate of the Will had been granted in the USA had expired. The only asset of the deceased is a bank account in the City Bank, P.M. Road Branch, Mumbai.

4.

Having considered the relevant Rules of the Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, in particular, Rule 420 for Administration Bond and Rule 422 which is for surety to be justified in certain cases, it is noted that there is no mention that the surety mentioned in the Administration Bond should be from the State of Maharashtra and/or from Mumbai." 5.

Having due regard to the above, I find that the requisition is without merit and is accordingly dispensed with. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) Order dated 1 st December 2021 in Testamentary Petition No.166 of 2020. Mugdha