Ritu Silaichia Alias Ritu Silaichia Dhillon v. Mangal Singh Dhillon (Deceased)

1 77. TP/5298/2024 Before: Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date: 15th April, 2025 FOR COMPLIANCE:

77. TP/5298/2024 [Original] (ECHCBM022232420 23) with WILL/2126/2024 P. C.: Shri. Kevin Gala Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner Shri. Yogesh Dalvi Ld. Advocate for Rajni Rani 1) Ld. advocate appearing for Rajani Rani submitted that today he will file the caveat in the petition. Hence, petition is kept back.

2) Matter is called again 04.30 pm. Ld.

advocate appearing for Rajani Rani submitted that he could not file the caveat. Already enough time was available to said Rajni Rani. Hence, petition is taken for order.

3) This petition is filed by petitioner, being one of the beneficiaries under the Will executed by Mangal Singh Dhillon (herein after the same is referred to as "Testator"), for grant of a Letters of Administration with Will annexed. Said Testator said to have died at Ludhiana, Punjab on 11-062023 Petitioner, namely Ritu Silaichia Alias Ritu Silaichia Dhillon, filed the copy of death certificate, identity proof of the testator, Will, petitioner's oath.

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

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

6) Petitioner stated that the deceased left behind his last Will and Testament which was duly executed at Mumbai on 15.08.2008, 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

2 77. TP/5298/2024 Master, High Court, Bombay.

7) Ld. Advocate for petitioner submits that parents of deceased predeceased testator and testator was survived by legal heirs, as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The petitioner affirmed that there are no other legal heirs of the deceased. Legal heirs of the testator have consented to the petition and thereby waived the service of Citation.

8) Citation was issued, which 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 one.

9) The petitioner has filed the affidavit of COLETTE AUSTIN, one of Attesting Witnesses to the Will, in form No.102 of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. He deposed that he was present and deceased signed the Testament in presence of him and another witness, after going through its contents. Hence, enough evidence is on record to accept the execution of the Will and petitioner is succeeded to prove the execution of Will.

10) Properties mentioned in the schedule-I of the petition are referred in the Will.

11) Petitioner has executed the administration Bond in the prescribed format. Hence, following order:

3 77. TP/5298/2024

ORDER

1) Petition is granted.

2) Office to issue Letters of Administration with Will annexed to the petitioner, upon satisfaction that the administration Bond is properly executed, as per the Rules, throughout India.

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.

15th April, 2025 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department