Bombay High Court
Bilkish Yunus Namakwala vs Shireen Dinshaw Mistry on 22 September, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:16060
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.240 OF 2025
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.639 OF 2022
Lady Jena Jamshedji Duggan ]
alias Jina Jamshedji Dagan ] ... Deceased
1. Shireen Dinshaw Mistry ]
Aged 63 years, Parsi ]
Indian Inhabitant, residing at ]
Sethna Building, 29-29A, Navroji ]
Seth Street, Thakurdwar, ]
Mumbai - 400 002. ]
2. Shapoor Dinshaw Toorkey ]
Aged 82 years, Parsi ]
Indian inhabitant, residing at ]
62, Shama Apartments, 138/1, ]
Prendergast Road, Secunderabad ]
- 500 003, Telangana ]
3. Dinshaw Maneck Mistry ]
Aged 96 years, Parsi ]
Indian inhabitant, residing at ]
Sethna Building, 29-29A, ]
Navroji Seth Street, Thakurdwar, ]
Mumbai - 400 002 ]
Executors of the last Will of ]
Dr. Feroze Homi Duggan ] ... Petitioners
Versus
Bilkish Yunus Namakwala, ]
aged 67 years, Muslim Sunni, ]
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, ]
Occupation: Housewife, residing at ]
Orchid Tower, "A" Wing, 24 Floor, ]
Flat No.2401, Belasis Road, Mumbai ]
Central, Mumbai - 400 008. ] ... Respondent
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
NAMDEO
SONAWANE WITH
SONAWANE Date:
2025.09.23
12:16:59 INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 5597 OF 2025
+0530
1/47
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:18:50 :::
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.240 OF 2025
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.639 OF 2022
Vandana Janardhan Salve nee ]
Vandana Feroze Duggan ]
Aged 53 years Occ, Nurse ]
Indian Inhabitant, Residing at ]
Room No.368, Room 11, Vishnu Patil ]
Chawl, Near Shankar Mandir, ]
Achanak Nagar Thane 400 612 ] ... Applicant
In the matter of
Lady Jena Jamshedji Duggan ] ... Deceased
1. Shrieen Dinshaw Mistry ]
Age: 63 Years, Parsi ]
Indian Inhabitant, residing at ]
Sethna Building, 4th Floor, 29-29A ]
Navroji Seth Street, ]
Thakurdwar, Mumbai: 400 002 ]
2. Shapoor Dinshaw Toorkey ]
Aged 80 years, of Secunderabad ]
Parsi Zoroastrian, Indian Inhabitan]
Occupation Retired, Residing at 62]
Shama Apartments, 138/1, ]
Prendergast Road, Secunderabad ]
500003, Telangana ]
3. Dinshaw Maneck Mistry ]
Aged 96 years, Parsi ]
Indian inhabitant, residing at ]
Sethna Building, 29-29A, ]
Navroji Seth Street, Thakurdwar, ]
Mumbai - 400 002 ] ... Petitioners
versus
Bilkish Yunus Namakwala, ]
aged 66 years, Muslim Sunni, ]
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai, ]
Occupation: Housewife, residing at ]
Orchid Tower, Bellasis Road, Mumbai ]
Central, Mumbai - 400 008. ] ... Respondent
2/47
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:18:50 :::
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.12552 OF 2025
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.240 OF 2025
Bilkish Yunus Namakwala, ]
aged 66 years, Muslim Sunni, ]
Housewife, residing at Flat No.2401 ]
24th Flr A Wing, Orchid Tower, ]
Bellasis Road, Mumbai ]
Central, Mumbai - 400 008. ] ... Applicant
In the matter of
1. Shrieen Dinshaw Mistry ]
Age: 63 Years, Parsi ]
at Sethna Building, ]
4th Floor, 29-29A ]
Navroji Seth Street, ]
Thakurdwar, Mumbai: 400 002 ]
2. Shapoor Dinshaw Toorkey ]
Aged 80 years, of Secunderabad ]
Parsi Zoroastrian, Indian residing ]
at 62 Shama Apartments, 138/1, ]
Prendergast Road, Secunderabad ]
500003, Telangana ]
3. Dinshaw Maneck Mistry ]
Aged 96 years, Parsi ]
Indian Sethna Building, 4th Floor, ]
29-29A, Navroji Seth Street, ]
Thakurdwar, ]
Mumbai - 400 002 ] ... Petitioners
versus
Bilkish Yunus Namakwala, ]
aged 66 years, Muslim Sunni Indian, ]
Housewife, residing at Flat No.2401 ]
24th Floor A Wing, Orchid Tower, ]
Bellasis Road, Mumbai ]
Central, Mumbai - 400 008. ] ... Respondent
3/47
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:18:50 :::
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.11244 OF 2025
IN
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.240 OF 2025
Bilkish Yunus Namakwala, ]
aged 66 years, Muslim Sunni, ]
Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai ]
Occupation Housewife, residing at ]
Flat No.2401 24th Floor A Wing, ]
Orchid Tower, Bellasis Road, ]
Mumbai Central, Mumbai - 400 008. ] ... Applicant
In the matter of
Lady Jena Jamshedji Duggan ] ... Deceased
1. Shrieen Dinshaw Mistry ]
Age: 63 Years, Parsi ]
at Sethna Building, ]
4th Floor, 29-29A ]
Navroji Seth Street, ]
Thakurdwar, Mumbai: 400 002 ]
2. Shapoor Dinshaw Toorkey ]
Aged 80 years, of Secunderabad ]
Parsi Zoroastrian, Indian residing ]
at 62 Shama Apartments, 138/1, ]
Prendergast Road, Secunderabad ]
500003, Telangana ]
3. Dinshaw Maneck Mistry ]
Aged 96 years, Parsi ]
Indian Sethna Building, 4th Floor, ]
29-29A, Navroji Seth Street, ]
Thakurdwar, ]
Mumbai - 400 002 ] ... Petitioners
versus
Bilkish Yunus Namakwala, ]
aged 66 years, Muslim Sunni Indian ]
Inhabitant of Mumbai, ]
Occupation Housewife, residing at ]
Flat No.2401 24th Floor A Wing, ]
Orchid Tower, Bellasis Road, Mumbai ]
Central, Mumbai - 400 008. ] ... Respondent
4/47
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:18:50 :::
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.2757 OF 2025
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.639 OF 2022
Vandana Janardhan Salve nee ]
Vandana Feroze Duggan ]
Aged 53 years Occ, Nurse ]
Indian Inhabitant, Residing at ]
Room No.368, Room 11, Vishnu Patil ]
Chawl, Near Shankar Mandir, ]
Achanak Nagar Thane 400 612 ] ... Applicant
In the matter of
Lady Jena Jamshedji Duggan ] ... Deceased
Vandana Janardhan Salve nee ]
Vandana Feroze Duggan ]
Aged 53 years Occ, Nurse ]
Indian Inhabitant, Residing at ]
Room No.368, Room 11, Vishnu Patil ]
Chawl, Near Shankar Mandir, ]
Achanak Nagar Thane 400 612 ] ... Applicant
versus
Bilkish Yunus Namakwala, ]
aged 66 years, Occ. Housewife ]
Muslim female, Indian Inhabitant ]
Residing at 2401, 24th Floor ]
A Wing, Orchid Tower, Bellasis Road, ]
Mumbai Central Mumbai 400008 ] ... Respondent
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Shanay Shah, Adv.
Soniya Putta, Adv. Karan Mehta, Adv. Souparnika S. i/by M/s.
Solomon & Co. for the Petitioner in MPT/240/2025.
Mr. Asif Latif Shaikh a/w. Adv. Abid Abbas Sayyad, Adv. P.S. Bankar,
Adv. Iqbal Qureshi for the Applicant in IAL/2757/2025,
IAL/55978/2025.
5/47
::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:18:50 :::
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, a/w Mr. Shagufa Ansari a/w. Adv. Vaibhav
Karnik for the Respondent.
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
RESERVED ON : 25th July, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd September, 2025
JUDGMENT:
1) This case exemplifies a flagrant fraud perpetrated not only
upon the rightful beneficiaries but also upon this Hon'ble Court. By
deliberately making false averments in Testamentary Petition
No. 639 of 2022 and ensuring that no notice was served on any
interested party, the Respondent fraudulently secured Letters of
Administration with the Will annexed. By such conduct, the
Respondent unlawfully usurped an immovable property valued at
Rs. 150 crores situated at Malabar Hill.
2) The Petitioners have filed the present Miscellaneous Petition
seeking revocation and annulment of the Letters of Administration
dated 3rd June 2022, granted in respect of an alleged Will dated
6th April 1993 of the deceased Lady Jena Duggan, who passed away
on 2nd September 1993.
3) After the grant of Letters of Administration in her favour, the
Respondent executed and registered a Deed of Transfer dated
17th June 2022, purporting to convey the Lawnside property at
Malabar Hill in her own favour, both as alleged administrator and
beneficiary under the purported Will.
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
4) The present Petition accordingly seeks revocation, cancellation
and annulment of (i) Letters of Administration dated 3 rd June 2022
and (ii) the Deed of Transfer dated 17 th June 2022 executed by the
Respondent as the alleged Administrator of the estate of Lady Jenna
Duggan.
Factual matrix
Legal Heirs of Lady Jenna Duggan
5) Lady Jenna Duggan's outlived her husband and her two sons
Nusly and Homi by April 1993. Survived by, (i) Aban - first wife of
Homi, and Dr. Feroze, their son, (ii) Eileen, second wife of Homi, and
Ferina their daughter, and (iii) Jean, Nusly's wife.
Will dated 4 April 1993
6) Lady Jenna executed a Will dated 4 th April 1993, drafted by
M/s. Kanga & Co. (Advocates and Solicitors) which is one of the most
reputed and leading solicitor firm and was attested by none other
than the legend, Senior Counsel Mr. Nani A. Palkhiwala and Solicitor
Ms. Roshan Master.
7) Though insignificant, under the Will, amounts were distributed
to her cook - John Marquis, her ayah - Mary, the driver - Bhagwan.
The balance entire estate consisting of all her immovable and
movable properties were bequeathed to her grandson, Dr. Feroze
Duggan alone. Notably her granddaughter, Ferina was excluded from
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
inheritance due to her apprehension that she would marry
Mr. Alexander S. Polichichook a Russian, which she ultimately did.
8) The estate included a property known as 'Lawnside' bearing CS
No. 242 of Malabar head division valued at Rs. 150 crores and
diverse shares, debentures and bank accounts, valued then in excess
of Rs. 1 crore (Rupees One Crore).
9) Mr. Aspi Chinoy the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners
submitted that the following facts and sequence of events would
establish and reveal the fraudulent conduct of the Respondent who
filed the Petition propounding a demonstrably false and fraudulent
Will dated 6th April 1993 of Lady Jena Duggan.
10) Lady Jenna passed away on 2nd September 1993.
Testamentary Petition No. 156 of 1994/Testamentary Suit 78 of
11) Notably, Testamentary Petition No. 156 of 1994 filed by Dr.
Feroze Duggan to probate the 1993 Will, due to a caveat by Jean
Duggan was converted into Testamentary Suit No. 78 of 1994. After
extensive proceedings, this Court, by judgment dated 3 rd August
2011, granted Probate of the Will dated 4th April 1993 in favour of
Dr. Feroze Duggan. An Appellate Judgment dated 23 rd October 2016
upheld the decision, converting the grant into one of Letters of
Administration with Will annexed. The Supreme Court dismissed SLP
No. 540 of 2017 on 13th January 2017, rendering the grant final.
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
Thus the Will dated 4th April 1993 was a subject of contest between
Jean Nusly Duggan and Dr. Feroze Duggan in a Testamentary
proceeding for over 20 years from 1994 to 2017.
12) Notably, both judgments of the High Court recorded that the
deceased Lady Jena Duggan had the benefit for the best legal acumen
to draft her Will. The Will was drafted by the Attorneys firm Kanga &
Co. who were the attorneys of her choice and that the deceased knew
the renowned senior counsel Mr. Nani Palkhiwala and the solicitor,
Ms. Roshan Master both of whom had attested the Will.
Suit No. 4847 of 1995 & Suit No. 258 of 1998
13) Moreover, simultaneously for over 30 years the Lawnside
property has also been the subject matter of Suit No 4847 of 1995
filed by Dr. Feroze Duggan against M/s. Benzer Pvt. Ltd. and others
for declaration / cancellation of an alleged Tenancy Agreement dated
6th June 1994 relating to the Bungalow on the said Lawnside
Property and other documents, on the ground that they had procured
it through fraud and misrepresentation. The said Lawnside property
was also the subject of Suit No. 258 of 1996 which had been filed by
Jean Nusly Duggan for administration of the Estate of Lady Jena
Duggan. The Court Receiver was appointed of the Lawnside property
in 1998 and was in possession of the same, except for a portion
occupied by Jean Nusly Duggan as agent of the Court Receiver.
14) On 22nd November 2020, Jean Nusly Duggan expired.
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
Thereafter since 2021 the Court Receiver has taken physical
possession of the entire Lawnside Bungalow/ Property.
Testamentary Petition No. 639 of 2022
15) The Testamentary Petition No. 639 of 2022 is filed by
Respondent in 2022- twenty-nine years after the death of Lady Jena
Duggan on 2nd September 1993, praying for grant of Letters of
Administration with Will attached dated 6th April 1993. A series of
false representations were made in the said Petition to mislead the
Court into treating the matter as uncontested and to fraudulently
obtain administration of the estate.
Testamentary Petition No. 4292 of 2023 in respect of Will dated 30 th
December 1994 of Feroze Duggan.
16) Dr. Feroze Duggan passed away on 13 th January 2022, leaving
behind a Will dated 30th December 1994. The Petitioners herein are
the executors named in the said Will and have filed Testamentary
Petition No. 4292 of 2023 for probate thereof. Even on intestate
principles (without conceding the same), Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2
would be the legal heirs under section 55 read with Part II of
Schedule II of the Indian Succession Act -- a position accepted by the
Respondent in her affidavit in paragraph no.4(i) at page no. 5.
17) In June 2023, Petitioners became aware that the Respondent
had sought mutation of the Lawnside property in her name. Upon
conducting a search, the Petitioners discovered Testamentary
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
Petition No. 639 of 2022 and, pursuant to an order of this Court,
obtained certified copies of the entire record on 15th February 2024.
18) Mr. Chinoy submits that the undisputed facts and
circumstances establish the following:
i. that the alleged Will of Lady Jena Duggan dated 6 th April
1993 is a false, forged and fraudulent document, and has been
conjured up/created by the Respondent, only to enable the
Respondent to make an ex facie false, fraudulent and belated
claim to Lady Jena Duggan's extremely valuable Malabar Hill
Lawnside property and;
ii. that the Respondent has secured the grant of Letters of
Administration in respect of the alleged will dated 6 th April
1993 by making knowingly false statements and has thereby
also played fraud on this Hon'ble Court.
Suspicious Circumstances:
19) He submits that it is wholly inconceivable that Lady Jena
Duggan, having executed a detailed and duly attested Will on
4th April 1993 - merely two days prior to the alleged will dated
6th April 1993 - would have completely reversed her testamentary
intentions.
20) Mr. Chinoy submitted that the Will of Lady Jena Duggan dated
4th April 1993 has already been the subject of contested
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
Testamentary proceedings before this Hon'ble Court spanning over
two decades, from 1994 to 2017.
21) By a judgment dated 3 rd August 2011, this Hon'ble Court
granted Probate of the said Will in favour of her grandson, Dr. Feroze
Duggan. The said judgment was affirmed by a detailed Appellate
Judgment dated 23rd October 2016, which, while affirming the
genuineness of the Will, directed issuance of Letters of
Administration with the Will annexed instead of Probate. These
judgments inter alia record that:
i. The deceased had the benefit of the best legal acumen in
the drafting of her Will;
ii. The Will was drafted by M/s. Kanga & Co., Advocates &
Solicitors, her long-standing attorneys who had also
represented her in litigation against Jean Nusly Duggan;
iii. The Will was attested by Senior Counsel Mr. Nani A.
Palkhivala and Solicitor Ms. Roshan Master, both known
personally to the deceased.
22) The Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred against the
appellate judgment dated 23rd October 2016 was dismissed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 13 th January 2017.
Consequently, the grant of Letters of Administration with the Will
dated 4th April 1993 annexed, in favour of Dr. Feroze Duggan, has
attained finality.
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
23) Mr. Chinoy submitted that the patently false and fraudulent
nature of the alleged Will dated 6th April 1993, and the Respondent's
purported claim thereunder to the Lawnside property at Malabar
Hill, is evident from her own conduct over nearly three decades.
24) Despite allegedly having the original of the said Will in her
possession, the Respondent did not disclose its existence nor assert
any claim over the Lawnside property for an inexplicable period of
29 years -- from 1993 until the filing of Testamentary Petition No.
639 of 2022.
25) The only explanation offered for this inordinate delay is found
in Paragraph 12 of the said Petition, which reads:
"That the delay, if any, in making the present Petition is on
account of the fact that the Petitioner (Respondent herein)
was ignorant and unaware of the requirement of obtaining
legal representation. Recently, while taking search at home,
the Petitioner has found the Will of the Deceased..."
26) This explanation, it is submitted, is inherently improbable and
lacks any evidentiary or circumstantial support -- particularly in
light of the concurrent and long-drawn probate proceedings
concerning the 4th April 1993 Will, which were ongoing in this very
Court.
27) Moreover, this averment case in paragraph 12 of the Petition is
belied by and is ex facie contrary to the Respondents case in her
Affidavits in Reply that:
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
i. "that she had advanced Rs. 27 lakhs as loan to Lady
Jena Duggan in 1980 for a period of 10 years, that Lady Jena
Duggan had executed a Mortgage Deed dt 10th July 1980 in
favour of the Respondent of her Lawnside property as
security,
ii. that as Lady Jena Duggan was not in a position to repay
the Loan, she had made her will dt 6th April 1993 bequeathed
the Lawnside property to the Respondent.
iii. that "till the said Will was discovered [ in 2022] , the
Respondent have been making several attempts for securing
the amount; ... I say that as I was looking after Lady Jena
there was no intent of any forceful action by the
Respondent".
28) Mr. Chinoy submitted that the Respondent's case -- that she
had advanced a sum of Rs. 27 lakhs to Lady Jena Duggan in 1980,
against execution of a Mortgage Deed dated 10th July 1980 over the
Lawnside property, and that since the loan could not be repaid, Lady
Jena had, by her alleged Will dated 6th April 1993, bequeathed the
said property to the Respondent in recognition of her financial
assistance and personal care -- is wholly untenable and riddled with
inconsistencies.
i. First, this claim is belied by the Respondent's own silence
and complete inaction for a period of 29 years, from
September 1993 (when Lady Jena passed away) until 2022,
when she allegedly "found" the Will and filed Testamentary
Petition No. 639 of 2022.
If, as now alleged in her Affidavits, the Respondent was a
mortgagee since 1980, and the testatrix had expressly bequeathed
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
the mortgaged property to her in satisfaction of the debt, there is no
plausible explanation for her failure to assert any rights, stake a
claim, or even disclose the existence of the Will -- for nearly three
decades. Her silence is wholly inconsistent with the conduct expected
of a creditor-legatee in possession of a valid testamentary
instrument.
ii. Secondly, this claim contradicts her own averments in
Paragraph 12 of the Petition, where she states:
"That the delay, if any, in making the present Petition is on
account of the facts that the Petitioner (Respondent
herein) was ignorant and unaware of obtaining any legal
representation. Recently, while taking search at home the
Petitioner has found the Will of the Deceased. Thereafter,
the Petitioner made inquiries for the purpose of transfer of
the property mentioned in the Will and now the Petitioner
has been recently advised to obtain a legal representation.
Hence, this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice, may
condone the delay."
This assertion -- that the Will was recently discovered -- is
plainly inconsistent with the narrative now sought to be advanced,
that the Respondent was both the mortgagee and sole beneficiary
under the Will and had known of its terms all along. It is wholly
inconceivable that a lady of considerable means, who could advance a
loan of Rs. 27 lakhs would be unaware of the necessity of proper legal
representation. Equally impossible is the narrative that, after a lapse
of nearly three decades, she suddenly discovered a Will and
thereafter initiated steps to transfer the property.
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
29) Mr. Chinoy submitted that, while the Respondent states in
Paragraph 12 of the Petition that the alleged Will dated 6 th April
1993 was "recently" discovered, there is a conspicuous absence of
any explanation -- either in the Petition or in the affidavits filed in
reply to the present proceedings -- as to how, when, or under what
circumstances the following crucial documents allegedly came to
light:
i. The purported Mortgage Deed dated 10th July 1980;
ii. The alleged Deed of Declaration with No Objection
Certificate dated 15th February 1993, purportedly executed by
Lady Jena Duggan and Dr. Feroze Duggan;
iii. The further alleged Deed of Declaration with No Objection
Certificate dated 7th April 1993, purportedly executed by Lady
Jena Duggan and Jean Nusly Duggan.
30) It is also pertinent to note that, despite repeated and specific
requests, the Respondent and her advocates have failed to produce
or allow inspection of the original versions of these documents. To
date, no inspection has been furnished, thereby casting serious doubt
on the authenticity, provenance, and very existence of these alleged
instruments.
31) Mr. Chinoy further submitted that during the same 29-year
period of alleged silence, the Lawnside property at Malabar Hill was
the subject matter of multiple legal proceedings -- which underscores
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
the improbability of the Respondent's claim of ignorance. Specifically:
i. In Suit No. 4847 of 1995, Dr. Feroze Duggan (grandson of
Lady Jena Duggan) filed a suit against M/s. Benzer Pvt. Ltd.
and others, seeking declaration and cancellation of an alleged
Tenancy Agreement dated 6th June 1994, concerning the
Lawnside Bungalow. He contended that said tenancy and
other related documents had been fraudulently obtained.
ii. The property was also the subject of Suit No. 258 of 1996,
filed by Jean Nusly Duggan (now deceased), the wife of Nusly
Duggan, for administration of Lady Jena Duggan's estate.
In 1998, this Hon'ble Court appointed a Court Receiver in
respect of the Lawnside property, who took physical possession in
2001 and continues to remain in possession of the same till date.
32) Mr. Chinoy submitted that the Respondent was fully aware of
these proceedings, including the fact that the Court Receiver had
been appointed and was in possession of the Lawnside property. This
is evident from her own purported Memorandum of Understanding
dated 3rd January 2024 with one Mr. Vicky Rupchandani (Exhibit L,
Page no.127 to the Respondent's Affidavit dated October 2024 in
reply to Interim Application No. 2057 of 2024), which expressly
records:
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
"The balance payments would be made to the Respondent
after removal of the Court Receiver." [Pg. 131]
33) Despite such knowledge, from 2001 to 2022, the Respondent
did not assert any claim to the property. Even more significantly,
after fraudulently obtaining Letters of Administration in 2022, she
purported to transfer the Lawnside property to her own name,
despite being fully aware that the Court Receiver was appointed and
in actual possession.
34) Mr. Chinoy submitted that the mala fide and fraudulent
conduct of the Respondent in propounding the alleged Will dated 6 th
April 1993 and in filing Testamentary Petition No. 639 of 2022 is
conclusively established by her own pleadings.
35) Despite the Petition and the alleged Will expressly referring to
Lady Jena Duggan's grandchildren, the Respondent falsely averred
in Paragraph 9 of the Petition that:
"... that the deceased left her surviving as her only heirs and
next of kin according to the Indian Succession Act as
Applicable to Parsi, the following persons ..." i.e. Lady Jena
Duggan's husband Jamshedji ( who had expired in
15.1.1957) and her two sons Homi and Nusly ( who had
expired in 9.6.1985 and 31.5.1983) and that "The Petitioner
states that there are no legal heirs of the Deceased or her
husband's side and mother's side. Further there are no legal
heirs of the deceased children of the Deceased. There are no
legal heirs of the deceased sons."
[Emphasis Supplied]
36) Mr. Chinoy submitted that averment in paragraph no.9 that :
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
"there are no legal heirs of the deceased children of the Deceased.
There are no legal heirs of the deceased sons.", was ex facie false to
the knowledge of the Petitioner/Respondent herein, in view of her
statement in paragraph no.7 of the Petition referring to the existence
of Lady Jena's "grandchildren".
"All cash, Jewelleries are already bequeathed to the children
and grandchildren during the lifetime of the deceased."
37) He further pointed out that the Respondent, by the averment
made in paragraph no.7, mischievously omitted mention of moveable
assets, though it included her bank accounts, shares and debentures,
which, as of 1993, were collectively valued in excess of Rs. 1 crore.
Moreover, the Respondent mischievously undervalued Lawnside
property at Malabar Hill admeasuring 3,327 sq mtrs at Rs. 150
crores. Thus, the assertion that in February 1993 Lady Jena Duggan
was unable to repay a sum of Rs. 27 lakhs to the Respondent, even
assuming such a loan had been advanced is implausible.
38) It was on the basis of this false and fraudulent suppression
of material facts, the Petitioner circumvented the statutory
requirement of serving citation on any interested party. As a result,
the Petition was treated as an "uncontested matter". By an order
dated 5th May 2022 the Addl. Registrar, Original Side treated the
Testamentary Petition No. 639 of 2022 as an " uncontested matter"
and the Letters of Administration along with the Will came to be
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
granted by order dated 3rd June 2022.
Will of Jena Duggan dated 6th April 1993
39) Mr. Chinoy submits that a close examination of the alleged Will
of Lady Jena dated 6th April 1993, annexed as Exhibit-B to the
Petition no. 639 of 2022 reveals several glaring deficiencies.
i. The alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 is not stated to have
been prepared or drafted by any Advocate or Solicitor;
ii. the language of the alleged Will dated 6th April 1993
discloses many grammatical errors for instance;
iii. clause 4 uses "give" instead of the grammatically correct
"given" ;
iv. clause 6 reads "after my death give my balance all
immovable and movable properties " which is syntactically
and semantically flawed.
v. The alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 is attested by two
individuals merely identified "John" and "Mary", with no
indication of their full names, addresses or capacity- thereby
casting a doubt on the validity of attestation;
In paragraph 6 and 7 purports to state that:
vi. I direct my executor of this Will that after my death give
my balance all immovable and movable properties including
Lawnside Harkness road Bombay Property to my donee
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
Mrs. Bilkish Yunus Namakwalla."
vii. That Mrs. Bilkish Yunus Namakwalla is taking care of me
and maintaining me."
40) He submits that these clauses -- apart from being vague and
grammatically incorrect -- appear contrived and inconsistent with
the tone and form of testamentary documents expected from a
Testatrix who had earlier engaged one of the city's most reputed law
firms and eminent witnesses (as seen in the duly probated Will dated
4th April 1993).
Affidavit dated 8th August 2022
41) Mr. Chinoy submitted that, having obtained the Letters of
Administration, the Respondent sought to cover her tracks by filing
an Affidavit dated 8th August 2022 in her capacity as Administrator
and Sole Beneficiary, purportedly for rendering a true account of the
properties and credits of the deceased under section 317 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925.
42) Interestingly, in paragraph no.4 of her Affidavit dated
8th August 2022, the Respondent herself admitted that the statement
made in paragraph no.9 of the Petition -- which were also reflected in
paragraph no.7 of the Additional Prothonotary's Order dated
5th May 2022 -- were a "mistake". She further stated:
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
"The two sons did not die as bachelors and were survived by
their concerned legal heirs at the time of filing of the
Petition."
43) The Respondent purported to cure this fatal suppression by
producing alleged "No Objection Certificates" from the said
"concerned legal heirs" -- a wholly ineffectual and impermissible
attempt to retrospectively sanitise a fraud played on this Hon'ble
Court.
44) The said Affidavit annexes the following:
i. a copy of a Deed of Transfer dated 17 th June 2022
executed by the Respondent as the alleged Administrator/
Beneficiary of the estate of the late Lady Jena Jamshedji
Duggan in favour of the Respondent as the alleged beneficiary
under the Will and Testament of Lady Jena Jamshedji Duggan
dt 6th April 1993 [Ref : Pg. 167 of Exh. G].
ii. "Deed of Declaration with NOC" dated 15th February 1993
allegedly executed by Lady Jena Duggan and her grandson
Dr. Feroze Homi Duggan.
This document claims that Lady Jena Duggan had mortgaged
the Lawnside property for Rs. 27 lakhs on 10 th July 1980 and that,
being unable to repay the said loan, she and her grandson-Dr. Feroze
Duggan had agreed to "give the said mortgaged property to the
mortgagee " namely the Respondent herein.
45) "Deed of Declaration with NOC " dated 7th April 1993 allegedly
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
executed by Lady Jena Duggan and Jean Nusly Duggan records that:
i. "Mrs Bilkish Yunis Namakwalla is taking care of me,
maintaining me also helped me financially by giving me
mortgage loan amount for my family survival and other
necessary expenses";
ii. that Lady Jena Duggan had by her will dt 6 th April 1993
bequeathed the Lawnside property to Mrs Bilkish Yunus
Namakwalla and that Jean Nusly Duggan was aware of the
Will dt 6th April 1993 and had no objection to the same."
46) Notably, no declaration/NOC was even alleged to be executed by
Lady Jena's granddaughter Ms. Ferina Duggan (now Polichichook).
Unquestionably, prior to the execution of the Will, both Ms. Ferina
Duggan and Mrs. Jean Duggan, being successors, would have to
provide such an "NOC" to the Respondent. This omission clearly
demonstrates that the assertions in the Affidavit are not only flawed
but are a belated and a flawed afterthought.
Affidavit in Reply dated 21st October 2024 to present Interim
Application
47) Mr Chinoy further submits that the Respondent in her Affidavit
in Reply dated 21st October 2024 to the Interim Application in the
Petition has alleged that she had advanced Rs. 27 lakhs as loan to
Lady Jena Duggan in 1980 for a period of 10 years, that Lady Jena
Duggan had executed a Mortgage Deed dated 10 th July 1980 in
favour of the Respondent of her Lawnside property as security, that
as Lady Jena Duggan was not in a position to repay the loan she had
by her Will dated 6th April 1993 bequeathed the Lawnside property to
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
the Respondent.
48) In her Affidavit-in-Reply to the Petition the Respondent has
stated as follows in paragrpah no. 4(iii) at page no.7 states that,
"I say that till the said Will was discovered, the Respondent
have been making several attempts for securing the amount
but initially on account of her camaraderie with late Lady
Jena and subsequently the abrupt raise of hands by the
Petitioner and particularly by one Jean Nusly Duggan, whom
the Respondent contacted through her representatives. I say
that as I was looking after Lady Jena there was no intent of
any forceful action by the Respondent."
49) In this Affidavit the Respondent has also impugned the Will of
Dr. Feroze Duggan dated 30 th December 1994 and consequently the
Applicants entitlement in law to maintain the present Petition.
50) Mr. Chinoy submitted that the Respondent's attempt to impugn
the Will dated 30th December 1994 of Dr. Feroze Duggan is a
mala fide effort to challenge the locus of the present Petitioners in
maintaining the present revocation proceedings. Such a challenge is
a transparent diversionary tactic aimed at deflecting from the
fraudulent nature of the Letters of Administration obtained by the
Respondent.
51) He further submitted that the Respondent has no caveatable
interest in the estate of Dr. Feroze Duggan and therefore lacks the
standing to assail his Will or the testamentary proceedings for grant
of probate in respect thereof. Consequently, she cannot be heard to
question the locus of the Petitioners in the present proceedings.
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
52) In any event, and without prejudice to the Petitioners' rights as
executors and beneficiaries under the Will, even assuming (whilst
denying) that section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 bars
them from asserting rights as executors prior to the grant of probate,
it is undisputed that Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the Class II legal
heirs of Dr. Feroze Duggan, under the law of intestate succession.
Accordingly, they undeniably have the locus standi to maintain the
present Petition for revocation of the Letters of Administration
fraudulently obtained by the Respondent.
53) Mr. Chinoy submitted that it is well settled in law that in a
Petition for revocation, any person who is aggrieved by the grant and
who had no knowledge of the proceedings, or where proper citation
was not issued, is entitled to seek revocation of the probate or Letters
of Administration on such grounds as may be available to them.
54) He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Basanti Devi v. Ravi Prakash Ramprasad Jaiswal 1, where it was held
that non-issuance of citation to interested parties vitiates the grant
and entitles such parties to move for revocation.
55) This Hon'ble Court, in George Harris v. Millicent Spencer2, held
that:
"An interest, however slight, or even a bare possibility of
interest, is sufficient to entitle a person to seek revocation of
a grant."
56) It was further held that even a person who acquires an interest
(2008) 1 SCC 267
AIR 1933 Bom 370 (at para 7)
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
in the estate after the testator's death, in a case of intestacy, is
entitled to apply for revocation. In essence, all persons having an
interest in the estate are entitled to apply.
57) The Calcutta High Court, in Dinanath Shah v. Surati Devi &
Ors.,3 affirmed the above position by following George Harris and
reiterated that:
"The object of section 263 is to protect the interest of persons
who might have a claim in the estate of the deceased, and
who have been prejudiced by the grant, especially where they
come to know of it only subsequently, and the grantee asserts
rights based on it."
58) In view of the foregoing facts, circumstances, and legal position,
it is respectfully submitted that the present Petition for Revocation
be allowed, and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Revoke and annul the Letters of Administration dated
3rd June 2022 granted in Testamentary Petition No. 639 of
2022, in respect of the alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 of
Lady Jena Duggan; and
(b) Cancel and annul all steps taken by the Respondent
Bilkish Namakwala pursuant to the impugned grant, including
the execution and registration of the Deed of Transfer dated
17th June 2022 purporting to transfer the Lawnside Property
to herself, and the mutation of her name in the Property Card;
(c) Direct that a certified copy of the order be forwarded to
(2003) 107 CWN 353 (Ref: Paras 6, 6.1, and 8.2 of the judgment)
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
the Registrar of Assurances, under section 31 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, for appropriate cancellation and rectification
of the registered instrument, and to take steps for removal of
the Respondent's name from the records.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
59) The Respondent contends that the status of the Petitioners to
claim the present relief is affected by section 213 of Indian
Succession Act, 1925. It is alleged that the Petitioners are third
parties to the testamentary proceedings and have preferred the
present revocation petition without first establishing their rights or
entitlement under the Will of Dr. Feroze Duggan, as required under
section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
60) The Respondent further submits that the Petitioners are barred
under section 213 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, as they are
neither the legal representative of Lady Jena Duggan, nor have they
obtained probate in their favour to prima facie establish any right in
respect of her estate. On this ground alone, the Miscellaneous
Petition preferred by the Petitioner is not maintainable.
61) The Respondent further states that the alleged Will of Late
Dr. Feroze Duggan, under which the Petitioners claim rights, is itself
fraudulent and inauthentic, and is presently under challenge in the
Testamentary Suit No. 199 of 2024.
62) The Respondent submits that the Petitioners cannot be
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
permitted to approach this Hon'ble Court by circumventing the
statutory requirements laid down under applicable law. It is
contended that prior to passing any orders affecting the grant
obtained by the Respondent, this Hon'ble Court must first:
i. examine the credentials of the Petitioners,
ii. verify the bona fides of their claim, and
iii. ascertain the true nature of their standing before this
Court.
63) The Respondent further submits that, in the interest of justice
and judicial economy, all connected matters--including the present
Miscellaneous Petition, the Testamentary Petition for grant of
probate of the Will of Dr. Feroze Duggan, and Testamentary Suit
No. 199 of 2024--ought to be heard and decided together, so as to
comprehensively determine the rights, interests, and title over the
subject property.
64) It is submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the
Petitioners in adopting such a course, since:
i. their interests are already protected by the Interim Order
dated 10th February 2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court;
ii. the Lawnside property is in the custody of the Court
Receiver; and
iii. the Respondent undertakes not to alienate or create any
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
third-party rights in the said property, pending
adjudication.
65) The Respondent submits that the locus of the Petitioners is
seriously disputed and stands challenged by the claim of the alleged
wife of the deceased Dr. Feroze Duggan, who has since set up a
competing testamentary instrument.
66) It is alleged that the wife of Dr. Feroze Duggan has been
deliberately ignored by the Petitioners for reasons best known to
them. The Petitioners, in their pleadings, have not even
acknowledged her as a legal heir to the estate of the deceased, and
have consciously omitted any reference to her or her claims in the
present proceedings.
67) The said wife has independently approached this Hon'ble Court,
asserting rights based on a purported Will and Last Testament of
Dr. Feroze Duggan dated 9th March 2020, which is currently
sub judice in separate proceedings. The Respondent contends that
the existence of this alleged subsequent Will renders the Will
propounded by the Petitioners (dated 30 th December 1994)
redundant and, consequently, demolishes the very basis of the
Petitioners' claim and locus in the present proceedings.
68) It is submitted that unless and until the Petitioners establish
their rights before this Hon'ble Court, they cannot be permitted to
seek revocation of the grant issued in favour of the Respondent.
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
69) The Respondent further submits that the deceased Dr. Feroze
Homi Duggan had expressly renounced his rights in respect of the
property known as 'Lawnside', Malabar Hill, in favour of the
Respondent.
70) It is the Respondent's case that on 10 th July 1980, Lady Jena
Duggan obtained a loan of Rs. 27,00,000 from the Respondent,
Mrs. Bilkish Yunus Namakwala, against a mortgage of the Lawnside
property. The terms of the mortgage allegedly stipulated that,
in the event of non-repayment within ten years (i.e., by 1990), the
Respondent would become entitled to full rights in the said property.
71) It is alleged that the mortgage amount remained unpaid even
as of 1993, and that Lady Jena discussed this issue with her
grandson, Dr. Feroze Duggan, who declined to repay the loan.
Thereafter, on 15th February 1993, Lady Jena and Dr. Feroze Duggan
allegedly executed a Deed of Declaration with No Objection, wherein
Dr. Feroze purportedly waived all his rights in the property.
72) Subsequently, on 6th April 1993, Lady Jena is alleged to have
executed a Will and Codicil bequeathing the Lawnside property to the
Respondent.
73) On 7th April 1993, she purportedly executed another Deed of
Declaration, this time with a No Objection from Mrs. Jean Nusly
Duggan, confirming the bequest in favour of the Respondent.
74) The Respondent claims that these documents were duly
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
executed in the presence of court officers and are validly executed
instruments.
75) The Respondent contends that the said documents -- namely
the mortgage, declarations, and NOCs -- are not being challenged on
their substance, but merely on the timing of their presentation before
this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that their veracity and
authenticity have not been specifically disputed.
Miscellaneous
76) The Respondent submits that the challenge to the impugned
Grant is entirely misconceived, being based on frivolous grounds
such as the language, grammatical errors, or the presumption that
the Will was not drafted by a competent legal professional. Such
objections, it is submitted, are neither maintainable nor legally
sustainable grounds for revocation. Further, the delay in filing the
Petition for Revocation has already been condoned by the
predecessor Bench, and no challenge to the credibility or competence
of the learned Judge ought to be entertained under the guise of
questioning such procedural aspects.
77) The Respondent states that on 4 th September 2023, Petitioner
No.1 filed Third Party Application (L) No. 25070 of 2023 seeking
certified copies of Testamentary Petition No. 639 of 2022 and the
Grant issued therein. The said application was opposed by the
Respondent but came to be allowed by Order dated 5 th December
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
2023. Upon obtaining the documents on 21 st October 2023, the
Petitioners then filed Testamentary Petition No. 4292 of 2023,
seeking Probate of the Will dated 30th December 1994 of Dr. Feroze
Homi Duggan.
78) It is the Respondent's case that the Petitioners, despite being
aware of the subsisting Grant in favour of the Respondent in respect
of Lady Jena Duggan's estate, have suppressed the pendency of Third
Party Application No. 25070 of 2023 as well as the issuance of the
Grant, in the pleadings of the Probate Petition and in the present
Revocation Petition (Petition No. 240 of 2025), thereby misleading
this Hon'ble Court.
79) The Respondent further states that she was not heard prior to
the passing of the ad-interim and interim orders dated 24 th July
2024 and 10th February 2025, in Interim Application No. 2057 of
2024. Despite having issued instructions via WhatsApp to her
erstwhile Advocate to file a Reply, the said advocate wrongfully
represented to the Court that there were no instructions, thereby
causing the Court to proceed without hearing the Respondent. The
Respondent has, as a result, initiated disciplinary proceedings
against her former counsel for such unprofessional conduct.
80) It is submitted that the Will of Dr. Feroze Duggan dated 30 th
December 1994, relied upon by the Petitioners, is of dubious
veracity. The said Will was never referred to by Dr. Feroze Duggan
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
himself in any pleadings before the Hon'ble Apex Court up to 2017,
even in proceedings where title to the Lawnside property was
directly in issue. According to the Petitioners' own case, the said Will
anticipates a bequest of the Lawnside property, which had not vested
in Dr. Feroze Duggan as on 30th December 1994 -- rendering such
bequest legally untenable.
81) Furthermore, the Will is silent as to any contingent bequest in
the event of the premature demise of the beneficiary or testator, and
does not name any alternate trustee, which raises doubts as to its
genuineness and legal enforceability.
82) The Respondent reiterates that the only property forming part
of Lady Jena Duggan's estate -- namely the bungalow "Lawnside" --
was bequeathed to the Respondent under the Will dated 6 th April
1993 and relevant Declarations. Necessary contemporaneous
documentation was executed in that regard.
83) The present Revocation Petition, it is submitted, proceeds
merely on surmise, conjecture and conflicting testamentary
documents, with two rival claimants -- the Petitioners and the widow
of Dr. Feroze Duggan -- now asserting rights on the basis of two
separate Wills nearly three decades apart. The Respondent prays
that:
(a) All related proceedings may be heard together;
(b) No party's rights would be prejudiced, especially since:
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
i. The subject property is in the custody of the Court
Receiver;
ii. The Petitioners are protected by the interim orders dated
10th February 2025;
iii. The Respondent undertakes not to alienate or encumber
the subject property in the interim.
84) In view of the above it is submitted that the petition be disposed
of and the Hon'ble Court be pleased to take up all the matters and
club and hear the same together and simultaneously.
Reasons and Conclusion:
85) Having heard both Counsel and perused the record, I draw the
following conclusions:
Second Letters of Administration with Will annexed
86) At the outset, I am of the view that the Letters of
Administration 3rd June 2022 obtained in favour of the Respondent
is a nullity. Probate of the Will dated 4 th April 1993 had already been
granted in favour of Dr. Feroze Duggan by this Court's order dated
3rd August 2011, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme
Court when the grant was converted into Letters of Administration
with Will annexed on 13th January 2017.
87) There exists no statutory provision in law including Part IX of
the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for a second Letters of
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
Administration in respect of the same deceased and the same
property; founded upon another Will. Any party seeking such a grant
must necessarily apply for revocation of the earlier Letters of
Administration in accordance with Chapter III or Chapter IV in
Part IX of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. On this ground alone, the
second Letters of Administration obtained by the Respondent
deserves to be set aside.
88) Moreover, a clear case of fraud practiced on this Court has been
demonstrated by Mr. Chinoy, this is another count where this
Petition succeeds as "nothing ... nothing ... and nothing, obtained by
fraud, can be sustained, as fraud unravels everything." 4 The Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dealing with fraud practiced on the High Court 5
observed as under:
"26. Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception
with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit
by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at
the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand
vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an
extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts,
whether in rem or in personam. The principle of "finality of
litigation" cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity
that it can be utilised as an engine of oppression by dishonest
and fraudulent litigants."
[Emphasis Supplied]
89) Although the Petition could be allowed on the above grounds
alone, in order to obviate any grievance that the other contentions
were left unaddressed, I proceed to deal with them hereinbelow.
Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 4 SCC 1
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221 : 2007 SCC OnLine SC 317
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
Caveatable Interest
90) I find merit in the submission of Mr. Chinoy that the Petitioners
would have caveatable interest and locus to maintain the Petition
being heirs of Dr. Feroz Duggan based on entitlement under intestate
succession. The principles laid down in Basanti Devi vs. Ravi Prakash
Ramprasad Jaiswal (supra), George Haris vs.. Millicent Spencer
(supra), and Dinanath Shah vs. Surati Devi and Ors. (supra) are
expressly applicable in this case.
91) Dr. Warunjikar's contention that (i) the locus of the Petitioners
is challenged by wife of Dr. Feroze Duggan, and (ii) that Dr. Feroze
Duggan has declared and renounced his rights to the 'Lawnside'
property in favour of the Respondent, appears calculated to
manufacture yet another controversy where none exists. These
arguments seem intended more to obfuscate rather than assist the
Court in a fair adjudication. Such submissions are wholly
unwarranted, if not deliberately raised with the object of securing a
finding capable of later challenge, thereby prolonging the final
resolution. Be that as it may, these contentions would not presently
detain me from deciding whether Letters of Administration dated
3rd June 2022 and Deed of Transfer dated 17 th June 2022 deserve to
be annulled and cancelled. The primary issue for the Court's
consideration is whether the Respondent could at all have been
granted a second Letters of Administration without first seeking
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
revocation of the earlier one.
Delay and Latches
92) I find considerable merit in Mr. Chinoy's submission that there
has been an inexplicable delay of 29 years in seeking Letters of
Administration.
Suspicious Circumstances
93) I also find merit with Mr. Chinoy's contention that it is
inconceivable that a lady, who had the benefit of the finest legal
expertise, would prepare a Will independently or through another
Advocate, rather than have another Will drawn by the same Solicitor,
assuming she had a change of heart. Such a conduct would be wholly
inconsistent with normal human behavior as observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court6 that "a circumstance would be 'suspicious
circumstance' when it is abnormal or is not normally expected in a
normal situation or is not expected of a normal person."
94) In my view, it is equally inconceivable that her Solicitors would
have been unaware of, or disregarded, a sizeable debt of Rs. 27 lakhs
- an enormous liability in those days - allegedly secured by mortgage
over the deceased property. It is further difficult to accept that such
a mortgage was neither registered nor reflected in the property
records by way of entry of the mortgagee's name. The narrative
sought to be advanced by Dr. Warunjikar is to say the least,
Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose, (1982) 1 SCC 20, paragraph 8
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
unconvincing and unpalatable.
Purported Mistake
95) I am also unable to accept the so-called mistake pleaded in the
Petition and purportedly sought to be rectified in the subsequent
affidavit with respect to the children and grandchildren. It is
inconceivable that a person who claims to be a caretaker of the
deceased, presumably for a prolonged period, during the presumed
absence of family, and who is alleged to have advanced a large sum as
a loan, intended to be a beneficiary of her property, would be
unaware of her children, grandchildren and daughter-in-law.
It clearly appears to be a fabricated narrative devised to serve her
own self-interest.
96) Viewed in the totality of Dr. Warunjikar's submissions, the
attempt appears to be nothing short of a conspiracy to usurp the
property by employing the machinery of this Court as an instrument.
97) It is difficult to believe that an individual entitled to a valuable
property in Mumbai would wait nearly three decades to have it
transferred in her name. Equally impossible is the suggestion that
such a person would remain unaware of litigation concerning the
same property initiated by the deceased's successors. Against this
backdrop, the contention that family disputes or other constraints
prevented her from filing a Petition appears patently false.
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
98) The argument that all proceedings were initiated by
Constituted Attorneys and that Dr. Feroze Duggan himself never
verified or attested any document himself, will have no bearing on
the present challenge to the grant of Probate in favour of the
Petitioner. The contention is nothing else but a smokescreen,
designed to deflect this Court's attention from the core issue. The
attempt to question the locus of the Petitioner is contrived strategy,
aimed solely at clouding the record and diverting focus from the real
matter at hand.
Bar under section 213 of Indian Succession Act.
99) The contention that section 213 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925 would bar the Petitioner, on the ground that they are neither
legal representatives nor have obtained probate, may at first appear
plausible. However, the submission overlooks the principle laid down
in George Harris vs. Millicent Spencer (supra) where Court held that
a person acquiring an interest in the estate after the Testator's
death, in case of intestacy, is entitled seek revocation. It also ignores
the ruling in Dinanath Shah vs. Surati Devi (supra) where the Court
observed that section 263 protects the interest of those adversely
affected by the grant, particularly where knowledge of such grant
arises only subsequent to its issuance.
Claim of the alleged Wife
100) Likewise, the claim of the alleged wife of Feroze Duggan seeking
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
to challenge the locus of the Petitioner, is of no assistance. The
Petitioner's case is that Dr. Feroze Duggan was a bachelor. The
burden, therefore, rests upon an alleged wife to establish her
marriage before she can legitimately question the Petitioner's locus.
It raises a doubt more particularly when the Respondent makes an
assertion that Dr. Feroze Duggan left India after the Mumbai bomb
blasts, though uncertain whether it was on 12 th March 1993,
11th July 2006 or 13th July 2011 and the other question; how did the
wife marry Dr. Feroze Duggan "prior to his demise" in India when he
was away. In any event, adopting the contention of the wife is not a
ground available to the Respondent.
Renouncing rights to Lady Duggan's estate by Dr. Feroze Duggan
101) The contention that Dr. Feroze Duggan had renounced his
rights to the Lawnside property is wholly untenable. It stands
contradicted by the three-decade-long litigation culminating in a final
adjudication declaring Dr. Feroze Duggan's entitlement to the
property under the Will of Lady Jena Duggan. It is equally
inconsistent with assertion that he had given a "no-objection" on
15th February 1993 for transferring rights to the Respondent. The
fact that Dr. Feroze Duggan litigated persistently for nearly three
decades, against his aunt Jean Nusly Duggan renders the suggestion
of such a prior renunciation wholly illogical and unacceptable.
102) Though, as a general rule, a Will cannot be invalidated merely
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
on account of language or grammatical errors, the present case must
be viewed in context, considering the social standing of the deceased,
and the fact that she had the access to the finest legal expertise, it is
improbable that she would, within two days of executing a formal
Will, prepare another Will independently or through an unknown
advocate, with attesting witnesses of unverified and unfamiliar
origin.
103) Some other questions that arise for consideration is:
i. Why no steps were adopted against Jean Nusly Duggan
who was residing in the property until she expired on 22 nd
November 2020? Assuming that the Respondent could not
find the purported Will of deceased Lady Jena Duggan, the
Respondent does not suggest that the mortgage deed too was
misplaced.
ii. Why were no steps initiated against removal of the Court
Receiver appointed in 1998?
iii. Does the Respondent have a right to challenge the
authenticity of Dr. Feroze Duggan's Will in absence of any
caveatable interest?
Conduct of Respondent during the present proceedings
104) Besides the above, it would be pertinent to note the conduct of
the Respondent.
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
105) Despite Court Order dated 10th February 2025, the Respondent
failed to deposit the Letters of Administration with the Testamentary
Registrar within the stipulated period.
106) Every attempt was made to scuttle the hearing of the matter on
one ground or the other as duly recorded in the orders on the Court
record. Even costs imposed for adjournments were blatantly
disregarded.
107) The Advocates conduct too was noted, which clearly
demonstrate the intent of the Respondent to thwart hearings of
proceedings and willfully breach the orders of the Court. The Orders
from 10th February 2025 to 11th July 2025 are evidence to the
blatant disrespect to this Court and its orders.
108) Referring to the retraction of statements in the subsequent
Affidavit filed by the Respondent as noted above, I am convinced that
false statements were made for obtaining the Letters of
Administration with an intent to deceive the Court. In my view, the
purported Will dated 6th April 1993 relied upon by the Respondent
would certainly impact the administration of justice, cause a
substantial injury to the Petitioners, and deprive the Petitioners of a
very valuable property. The existence of such a document would
compel Courts to require the parties to lead evidence to prove it.
109) Furthermore, having heard the arguments, I am convinced that
in the interest of justice, an inquiry should be conducted into the
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
offences committed by the Respondent in relation to the forged Will
dated 6th April 1993, annexed to the Letters of Administration
granted by the Court. Reliance is placed on the recent judgement of
this Court in the case of Hila Homi Dadi vs. Hoshang Jehangir Khan 7
which considers the law on section 340 read with section 195 of the
Criminal Code Procedure in turn relying on the full bench of Supreme
Court in State of Punjabi vs. Jasbir Singh8 which decided the issue,
that the purpose of a preliminary inquiry under section 340(1),
Criminal Procedure Code was not to find whether a person is guilty or
not but only to decide whether it was expedient in the interest of
justice to inquire into the offence. The ratio of the Full-Bench decision
in Jasbir Singh's (supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case.
110) In KD Sharma vs. SAIL9 the Supreme Court held that
suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy, it is
a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation. If a
party does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but
states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the Court
has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse
of its process to refuse to proceed further with the examination of the
case on merits. If the Court does not reject the Petition on that
ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. It went on to state that
the Court must initiate contempt proceedings for abusing the process
2025:BHC-OS:13699
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1240
(2008) 12 SCC 481
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
of the Court. The conduct of the Respondent in present case squarely
fits to the one described in the said judgement. I am therefore
inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the Respondent.
111) I am inclined to also saddle the Respondent with exemplary
costs as commended by the Supreme Court in the case of Dnyandeo
Sabaji Naik vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar 10 which held that Court
must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the
process and Courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by
litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted below for ready reference:
"13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a
litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial
process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt
with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or
with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt
about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture
along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced
expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are
inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in
litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country,
there is no premium on the truth.
14. Courts across the legal system--this Court not being an
exception--are choked with litigation. Frivolous and
groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the
administration of justice. They consume time and clog the
infrastructure. Productive resources which should be
deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in
attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by
prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No
litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as
the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice
is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the
legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple
(2017) 5 SCC 496: (2017) 3 SCC (civ) 189 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 211
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how
successive applications have been filed to prolong the
inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice
lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated
attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed
only if courts across the system adopt an institutional
approach which penalises such behaviour. Liberal access to
justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A
strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will
not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies
designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial
action is taken by all courts here and now our society will
breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It
is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations.
The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument
which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent
the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can
set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the
concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real
time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is
available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the
doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight
of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation
cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a
matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all
courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by
those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice.
We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the
same manner."
112) In view of the above, I am convinced that the Letters of
Administration granted in favour of the Respondent deserves to be
set aside with exemplary costs. Accordingly, I pass the following
order:
i. the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses
(a) and (b), the Registrar of Sub-Assurances - City-I,
is directed to cancel the registration of Deed of Transfer dated
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
17th June, 2022 registered under Sr. No. BBB-6974-2022 and
record its cancellation in his books as per section 31(2) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963.
ii. the Respondent is directed to pay to the Petitioner a sum
of Rs.. 25,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from the date
of this order;
iii. this Court takes Suo motu cognizance of the breach of the
Order dated 10th February 2025 and directs the Registry to
issue a show cause notice to the Respondent seeking
explanation why no action should be taken against her for
willful breach of the order dated 10th February 2025.
iv. The Prothonotary and Senior Master through his
representative shall lodge an appropriate Complaint before
the jurisdictional Magistrate in respect of the offences
punishable under sections 233, 236, 237, 336, 340 of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for the offences alleged to have
been committed by the Respondent. Such Complaint shall be
filed in accordance with section 379(1)(b) and (c) read with
section 379(3)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
113) The Prothonotary and Senior Master to report compliance and
status of the complaint every three months to this Court.
114) In view of the disposal of the Miscellaneous Petition No.240 of
Sumedh 902-mpt-240-2025-J.doc
2025, all interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly.
115) List matter for compliance on 15th December 2025.
116) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
Cases Referred:
1. (2008) 1 SCC 267.
2. AIR 1933 Bom 370 (at para 7).
3. (2003) 107 CWN 353 (Ref: Paras 6, 6.1, and 8.2 of the judgment).
4. Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 4 SCC 1.
5. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221 : 2007 SCC OnLine
SC 317.
6. Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose, (1982) 1 SCC 20, paragraph 8.
7. 2025:BHC-OS:13699.
8. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1240.
9. (2008) 12 SCC 481.
10. (2017) 5 SCC 496: (2017) 3 SCC (civ) 189 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 211.
