Geeta Mohan Naik v. Mohan Dattaram Naik

Before : Shri. P. A. Jagdale, Officer on Special Duty, With Testamentary Department Date :- 20th January, 2026 FOR HEARING :

104. TP/5732/2025 (AMH20240128768C202500039) with WILL/2153/2025 ) ) ) ) Ms. Swati S Mathkar Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner P. C. :

1.

The petitioner to execute the Administration Bond for the gross amount in view of Rule 420 of the Bombay High Court (OS) Rules, 1980. 2.

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the deceased died leaving his widow-Petitioner and Daughter, namely Pratiksha. Daughter has given the Consent. Hence, there is no other person, whose interest is to be p. 00000rotected, while administration of the property. 3.

Ld. Advocate for the petitioner is relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Rajesh Sinha & Ors V/s State [2015 (151) DRJ 434]. I have gone through the said Judgment.

4.

Furthermore, in this regard, there is Judgment of the Hon'ble Court in TP No. 4861/2024, Cecilia Benavidas Chinai Vs Kays Buddhisagar Chinai (Deceased). In the said Case, deceased died leaving his Widow as his sole surviving legal heir. Hence, the Hon'ble Court laid down that in such circumstances, administration Bond is not required.

5.

However, in present case, the deceased died leaving a daughter and therefore administration bond is directed to be sought. Hence, it would be proper to seek the directions from the Hon'ble Court. The department to take steps. 6.

S. O. To 03.02.2026 20.01.2026 Officer on Special Duty, with Testamentary Department