[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Subroto Taraprasad Pakrasi vs Kamladevi Bahadursingh Thapa Through ... on 12 March, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
P7. MPTL-8495-2026.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
MISC. PETITION (L) NO. 8495 OF 2026
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 5016 OF 2022
Subroto Taraprasad Pakrasi & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Kamladevi Bahadursingh Thapa .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Rohaan Cama a/w. Mr. Kyrus Modi i/by Ms. Sapana Rachure,
Advocates for Petitioners
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : MARCH 12, 2026
P. C.:
1. Not on board. Mentioned by way of filing a praecipe dated
12.03.2026.
2. Heard Mr. Cama, learned Advocate for Petitioners.
3. Facts in the present case are prima facie very shocking. In fact
they bring out element of fraud on the face of record. Respondent has
been issued grant i.e. Letters of Administration by Department by
virtue of the order dated 16.10.2025 (attended at Exh. 'Z', page Nos.
153-155 of Petition. Prima facie after reading of the said order it can
be assumed that Department has followed due process of law
requiring the Respondent to take appropriate steps in respect of
issuing citation or proclamation in the facts of the present case.
1 of 5
P7. MPTL-8495-2026.odt
However, it is prima facie seen that there are certain loopholes which
are evident on the face of record itself.
4. When the matter was before the Department prior to issuance of
grant, Department has passed two orders dated 12.12.2024 (appended
at Exh. 'X', page No. 149) and order dated 19.12.2024 (appended at
Exh. 'Y', page Nos. 150-153). If both these orders are read, it is seen
that Respondent was required to file her affidavit as also issue citation.
Respondent has filed affidavits dated 18.09.2024 and 17.12.2024 and
made categorical submissions therein that wife of the deceased had
predeceased him whereas deceased had no son. Same is seen from the
recording made in paragraph No. 5 of the order dated 19.12.2024
appended at page No. 151 of Petition.
5. The last Will and Testament of deceased which is propounded
by the Respondent in respect of which grant has been issued is at page
Nos. 123-126 of Petition. If the same is read, from reading of clauses
8(C) and 8(D), it is prima facie evident that the deceased had a
daughter as there is direct reference to the said daughter and the fact
that Respondent was taking care of the said daughter. In the wake of
this, the statement made in the affidavits dated 18.09.2024 and
17.12.2024 that the deceased had no son is not only inadequate but it
prima facie amounts to suppression. This fact has been missed out by
2 of 5
P7. MPTL-8495-2026.odt
the learned Officer on Special Duty while allowing the Petition by
order dated 16.10.2025. This is emanating from the record.
6. However, a larger question is required to be addressed in the
facts of the present case as argued by Mr. Cama on the basis of record.
Respondent is not relative of the deceased rather she was engaged as a
maid servant in 2014 to look after the daughter after the demise of the
deceased. The date of demise of the deceased is 09.04.2014.
Incidentally daughter has also expired in the year 2017. In that view
of the matter, this Court is astonished or shocked as to how
Respondent has now curated her case and propounded the Will of
2011 under which entire bequeathal is made to her to the exclusion of
the Class-I and Class-II legal heirs of deceased who are before the
Court. Petition before me is filed by Class-II legal heirs (nephews) of
the deceased. There is one living Class-I legal heir of the deceased i.e.
brother who was also not served with the citation at all. In fact it is
seen that citations were served by substituted service on making false
assertion in the affidavit in support and the additional affidavit in
support to which reference is already made by this Court herein above.
The act of Respondent does not end here. In 2021 Respondent along
with her accomplices she had made an attempt to forcibly enter into
the same property belonging to the parents of Petitioner before me
before issuance of grant. Appropriate police complaint was filed in
3 of 5
P7. MPTL-8495-2026.odt
Matunga Police Station details of which are placed on record. But
however after issuance of grant on 16.10.2025 she has forcibly
entered into the same property which in fact does not belong to the
deceased but belongs to the parents of Petitioners under the
assumption that the subject property in fact belongs to the deceased
on the basis of the Letters of Administration issued by this Court.
7. Facts in the aforesaid case are extremely glaring. In that view of
the matter, ad-interim exparte relief is granted in terms of prayer
clause (c) which reads thus:-
"(c) that the pending the hearing and final disposal of the present
Petition, the Respondent her servants, agents, representatives or
constituted attorney and/or any person connected to the
Respondent and or her agents be restrained by an order and
Injunction of this Hon'ble Court from acting upon the Grant of
Letters of Administration alongwith Will annexed of an alleged will
dated 9th November, 2011 and/or claim any rights and/or and/or
title and/or interest and/or possession in the said Flat No.09 in
Cozy Comer Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Plot No.760,
Muncherji Joshi Road, Dadar Parsi Colony, Dadar (East), Mumbai-
400 014 on the basis of the said and Letters of Administration
alongwith Will annexed of an alleged will dated 9th November,
2011."
8. In view of the above, issue notice to the Respondent made
returnable on 27.03.2025. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court's
notice, Petitioners are directed to serve copy of the Petition along with
copy of this order on the Respondent and inform her about the next
date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file
4 of 5
P7. MPTL-8495-2026.odt
appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof on or
before the next date.
9. Respondent is directed to remain present either by herself or
through her Advocate on the next adjourned date. It is made clear
that if Respondent remains absent despite service on the next
adjourned date, this Court shall hear the Petition and pass appropriate
orders as this Court has taken cognizance of the case of the Petitioner.
10. Department is directed to issue copy of the Testamentary
Petition along with all annexures appended thereto filed by
Respondent to Advocate for Petitioner before me.
11. Stand over to 27th March, 2026 under the caption "for
Directions"
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.03.12
19:31:31 +0530
5 of 5
