2. The applicant claims that at a family get together, the applicant came
the deceased Damodardas J. Wadhwa was granted to Smt. Anusuya
Court.
5. Mr. Dutt submits that the deceased was bachelor and the Schedule of
Assets consists of joint Hindu Family Property of Wadhwa Family which
appears from the list of female jewellery and ornaments that has been
mentioned in the Schedule of Assets.
2023:CHC-OS:4534
6. Mr. Dutt submits that joint family assets originally came from the
assets of Jerambhai Bhoolchand Wadhwa, the father of the deceased.
Jerambhai Bhoolchand Wadhwa passed away in 1959 and at the time
of his death, his three sons namely, Gordhandas J. Wadhwa,
Dungershi J. Wadhwa, Damodardas J. Wadhwa and two daughters,
namely, Anusuya Pujara and Kusum Asani and two grandsons,
namely, Dilip Wadhwa and Bhushan Wadhwa were already born and
had survived him as coparceners.
7. Mr. Dutt submits that Dilip Wadhwa had coparcenary rights over the
assets mentioned in the Schedule of Assets. Dilip Wadhwa was alive
when Damodardas J. Wadhwa passed away and also at the time of
filing of an application by the petitioner for grant of Letters of
Administration. Dilip Wadhwa is a Class II heir of the deceased and
thus the Dilip Wadhwa has caveatable interest in the estate of the
deceased.
8. Mr. Dutt submits that there is a cardinal difference between Section
276 and Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 278
explicitly provides that an application for grant of Letters of
Administration should state that particular of the family or other
relatives of the deceased, and their respective residences. He relied
upon the judgment in the case of Swaminathan and Others Vs.
Alankamony (Dead) Through Lrs. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 539
and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has drawn a
distinction between Section 276 and 278 of the Indian Succession Act,
2023:CHC-OS:4534
1925 and held that non-citation to the parties is a valid ground for
revocation of grant.
9. Mr. Dutt relied upon the judgment in the case of Southern Bank Ltd.
Vs. Kesardeg Ganeriwalla and Ors. reported in 1957 SCC OnLine
Cal 146 and submits that if the circumstances showing execution of
then Will is suspicious then the same is material and if they have been
kept back from the Court, that would be good ground for revoking the
probate.
10. Mr. Dutt relied upon the judgment in the case of Elizabeth Antony Vs.
Michel Charles John Chown Lengera reported in (1990) 3 SCC 333
and submits that absence of caveatable interest does not deprive a
party of its right to invoke Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act,
1925 to revoke grant of Letters of Administration.
11. Mr. Dutt further relied upon the judgment in the case of T.R.
Gopalaswamy Pillay Vs. Meenakshi Ammal, 1929 reported in ILR
(Rangoon Series) Vol VII pg. 39 and submits that a member of an
undivided Hindu Family during his life is entitled to the beneficial
interest in the family estate, but on his death that interest immediately
ceases and the whole beneficial interest belongs to the family. No part
of the Joint Hindu Family is the deceased estate.
12. Mr. Anirban Ray, Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner
submits that even if the property is a joint Hindu Family Property
governed by Mitakshara Law, the same would devolve by testamentary
2023:CHC-OS:4534
or intestate succession and "not by survivorship" and the coparcenary
property, if any shall be deemed to have been divided in the present
case, the applicant has not mentioned or identified any Hindu
Undivided Family or any specific property of any Hindu Undivided
Family. If the properties being that of the father of the deceased are
considered, there is no identification of the Hindu Undivided Family or
the properties which are of the father of the deceased. He submits that
any challenge of any property in the affidavit of assets, being that of
any Hindu Undivided Family, would have to be decided by a Civil Court
and not by testamentary Court and cannot be a ground for revocation
of a Letters of Administration.
13. Mr. Ray submits that the deceased Damodardas J. Wadhwa was a
Hindu male. As per general rules of succession in the case of males, as
provided under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the
property of such a male Hindu died intestate would devolve intestate,
firstly, upon the heirs specified in Class-I of the Schedule and secondly,
if there is no heir in Class-I, then upon the heirs specified in Class-II of
the Schedule.
14. Mr. Ray submits that as per Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, in case of succession amongst Class-II heirs, those in the first
entry in Class-II shall be preferred to those in the second entry, those
in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry, and so
on in succession. He submits that Section 9 provides the order of
succession among heirs in the schedule to the Hindu Succession Act,
2023:CHC-OS:4534
1956. He submits that the deceased did not have any Class-I heir as
per the schedule to the Act of 1956.
15. Mr. Ray submits that the petitioner late Anusuya Pujara had applied
for grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased as
his sole legal heir being the sister of the deceased and falls under the
Entry II, Serial No. 4 (sister) of Class-II of the schedule to the Act of
1956. The other sister of the said deceased, namely, Kusum Laxmikant
Asani had predeceased the said deceased. Serial No.1 (Son's daughter's
son) and Serial No.2 (Son's daughter's daughter) of Entry-II of Class-II
are not applicable in the instant case since the deceased was a bachelor
and did not have a son. Serial no.3 (brother) is concerned, admittedly,
all the brothers of the deceased had pre-deceased him and were not
alive at the time of death of the deceased.
16. Mr. Ray submits that late Anusuya Pujara was the only legal heir of the
said deceased who fell in the category of a Class-II, Entry -II, Serial
No.4. The applicant is the widow of Late Dilip Wadhwa, Dilip Wadhwa
was the son of the predeceased brother of the deceased. As per
schedule of the Act of 1956, brother's son falls in the category of Class-
II, Entry - IV, Serial No. 1.
17. Mr. Ray submits that as per Rule 5a of Chapter XXXV of the Original
Side Rules of this Court in a petition for grant of Letters of
Administration, the applicant is required to state the names of the
members of the family or other relatives upon whom the estate would
2023:CHC-OS:4534
have devolved in case of intestacy. There is no necessity to mention the
name of Late Dilip Wadhwa in the application for grant of Letters of
Administration. He submits that as per Rule 9 of Chapter XXXV of the
Original Side Rules of this Court, citation was required to be issued to
all the persons having a right to take the grant prior or equal to that of
the applicant. He submits that under no circumstances, Late Dilip
Wadhwa entitled to any citation in the instant testamentary proceeding.
18. Mr. Ray relied upon the judgment in the case of Hari Shanker Jain
Vs. Sonia Gandhi reported in (2001) 8 SCC 233 and submits that no
amount of evidence can be looked into or arguments can be considered
when the same is not supported by any pleadings. He also relied upon
the judgment in the case of Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta Vs. New Era
Fabrics Private Limited and Others reported in (2015) 9 SCC 755.
19. Mr. Ray relied upon the judgment in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs.
Rakesh Sharma & Ors. reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 and in the case of
Revanasiddappa & Anr. Vs. Mallikarjun & Ors. reported in (2023)
10 SCC 1 and submits that even if the deceased had an interest in a
Joint Hindu Family property, the same devolved by intestate succession
upon Late Anusuya Pujara in accordance with laws of intestacy.
20. Issues in the present application whether the applicant is having any
caveatable interest of the assets and property of the deceased
Damodardas J. Wadhwa and whether Anusuya Pujara obtained Letters
of Administration by suppressing the material facts without notice to
2023:CHC-OS:4534
the applicant. Smt. Anusuya Pujara (now deceased) had filed an
application being PLA No. 471 of 2022 for grant of Letters of
Administration of estate of Deceased Damodardas J. Wadhwa. By an
order dated 20th July, 2023, this Court has granted Letters of
Administration to Anusuya Pujara by passing the following Order:
"The Court :- Supplementary affidavit filed by
Anusuya Girdharlal Pujara being the only heiress
in intestacy being one under Class-II of the
schedule as contained under Section 8 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. By way of the
supplementary affidavit, the applicant has tried to
demonstrate that the estate of the deceased
comprises of several stocks and shares. The
registered office of the companies wherein the
deceased held shares are all outside the Ordinary
Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. It is,
therefore, submitted on behalf of the applicant that
this Court has the jurisdiction to receive, try and
determine the instant probate proceedings.
Considering the details furnished, I am
satisfied that this Court is authorized to exercise
concurrent jurisdiction under the provisions of
Section 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
despite the restrictions provided under City Civil
Courts Act, 1953. The only legal heiress as stated
in the application is the applicant and as such
there is none other to oppose this application for
grant of letters of administration in respect of the
estate left behind by the deceased.
Considering the view of the department upon
complete scrutiny, the application for grant of
letters of administration is allowed by granting
order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition subject to
the applicant furnishing a personal bond for a sum
of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- with two sureties.
The petition for grant of letters of
administration stands disposed of, accordingly."
2023:CHC-OS:4534
21. In the application for grant of Letters of Administration, the petitioner
has stated that the petitioner is the only surviving heir of the deceased
being the elder sister. The petitioner has provided the following
Genealogical Table of the legal heirs of Jerambhai Bhoolchand Wadhwa
and Velbai Jerambhai Wadhwa:
22. The applicant has provided the following Genealogical Table of
Jerambhai Bhoolchand Wadhwa and Velbai Jerambhai Wadhwa which
reads as follows:
2023:CHC-OS:4534
23. The petitioner has not denied that the petitioner has not disclosed the
details of the applicant and no notices was served upon the applicant.
The petitioner relied upon the Section 6(3) of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956 which reads as follows:
"6. Devolution of interest in coparcenary
property.- (3) Where a Hindu dies after the
commencement of the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005, his interest in the property
of a Joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara
law, shall devolve by testamentary or intestate
succession, as the case may be, under this Act and
not by survivorship, and the coparcenary property
shall be deemed to have been divided as if a
partition had taken place and,--
(a) the daughter is allotted the same share as
is allotted to a son;
(b) the share of the pre-deceased son or a pre-
deceased daughter, as they would have got
had they been alive at the time of partition,
shall be allotted to the surviving child of
such pre-deceased son or of such pre-
deceased daughter; and
(c) the share of the pre-deceased child of a pre-
deceased son or of a pre-deceased
daughter, as such child would have got had
he or she been alive at the time of the
partition, shall be allotted to the child of
such pre-deceased child of the pre-deceased
son or a pre-deceased daughter, as the case
may be.
Explanation. --For the purposes of this sub-
section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara
coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the
property that would have been allotted to him if a
partition of the property had taken place
immediately before his death, irrespective of
whether he was entitled to claim partition or not."
2023:CHC-OS:4534
24. The application filed by Late Anusuya Girdhar Lal Pujara being PLA No.
471 of 2022 for grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of the
deceased Damodardas J. Wadhwa on the ground that the deceased
died leaving behind moveable and immovable properties and the
petitioner is the only surviving legal heir of the deceased who inherit
the estate of the deceased under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and
no one else.
25. The petitioner is the sister of the deceased Damodardas J. Wadhwa.
The deceased was unmarried. The deceased had two brothers and two
sisters, namely, Gordhandas Jerambhai Wadhwa, Dungershi
Jerambhai Wadhwa, Anusuya Pujara and Kusum Laxmikant Asani.
Both brothers and one sister were pre-deceased to the deceased died on
18th December, 2018; 4th April, 2004 and 10th January, 2021
respectively. The applicant herein is the daughter-in-law of Dungershi
Jerambhai Wadhwa.
26. Admittedly, there is no Class-I heir of the deceased Damodardas J.
Wadhwa. Section 8 and Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
reads as follows:
"8. General rules of succession in the case
of males.― The property of a male Hindu dying
intestate shall devolve according to the provisions
of this Chapter:―
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives
specified in class I of the Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then
upon the heirs, being the relatives specified
in class II of the Schedule;
2023:CHC-OS:4534
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two
classes, then upon the agnates of the
deceased; and
(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the
cognates of the deceased.
9. Order of succession among heirs in the
Schedule.―Among the heirs specified in the
Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously
and to the exclusion of all other heirs; those in the
first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in
the second entry; those in the second entry shall be
preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in
succession."
27. The petitioner is the sister of the deceased and the applicant is the
daughter-in-law of the brother of the deceased. The petitioner being the
sister of the deceased and is coming under the Schedule of Class-II,
Entry-II, Sl. No. 4. The applicant being the daughter-in-law of the
brother of the deceased is not a direct heir, but her husband being the
son of the brother of the deceased would be under the Schedule of
Class-II, Entry-IV, Sl. No. 1.
28. The case of the petitioner that the deceased left behind moveable and
immovable properties. The case of the applicant is that the properties
are joint family assets. The applicant has only made averments about
joint family property but has not disclosed any documents to establish
that the properties are joint family properties.
29. Daughter-in-law of the brother of the deceased generally does not have
a caveatable interest because she is not a direct heir. Her right to claim
a share of property would typically only arise through her husband's
2023:CHC-OS:4534
legal claim to the estate. Daughter-in-law cannot claim an independent
interest to file a caveat against the will unless her husband is the
primary heir and has authorized her or unable to act himself. A
caveatable interest is usually limited to those with a direct, vested
interest in the estate, such as legal heir. A daughter-in-law's claim is
indirect, stemming from her husband. She can only assert an interest
through her husband. If he has share of the estate, she may have a
claim, but not on her own.
30. A daughter-in-law has a very few rights in her husband's ancestral
property. Personal laws govern inheritance in India. Hindu Undivided
Family (HUF) grants a daughter-in-law the status of a member of the
family from the date of her marriage, but this does not make her a
coparcener. The daughter-in-law acquires right to the family's property
through her husband share in the property. The daughter-in-law
cannot claim any rights on the property which exclusively belongs to
her in-laws, and as such property shall not be treated as shared
property. The daughter-in-law does not have right over the self-
acquired property of her in-laws. She acquires right over in-laws
property only through the share of her husband in the property.
31. This Court finds that the applicant failed to show that the properties
left behind by the deceased is a joint family properties. Challenge of any
property being that of Hindu Undivided Family, would have to be
decided by a Civil Court and not by the Testamentary Court.
2023:CHC-OS:4534
32. Rule 5(a) of Chapter XXXV of the Original Side Rules of this Court
provides that a petition for grant of Letters of Administration, the
petitioner is required to state the names of the members of the family or
other relatives upon whom the estate would devolve in case of
intestacy. The petitioner had applied for grant of Letters of
Administration of the estate of the deceased being the sole legal heirs
as his sole legal surviving heir being the sister of the deceased coming
under the Schedule, Class-II (II)(4). The two brothers and sister had
predeceased to the deceased. The applicant being the daughter-in-law
of the brother of the deceased generally does not have a caveatable
interest because she is not a direct heir and the applicant failed to
establish that the property left behind by the deceased is joint property.
33. The judgments relied by Mr. Dutt are not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case as this Court held that the applicant
has not established that the property left behind by the deceased is a
joint family property and the applicant has not established that she is
having any caveatable interest in the property of the deceased.
34. Considering the above, this Court did not find any merit in the
application filed by the applicant, accordingly, G.A. No. 1 of 2024 and
G.A. No. 2 of 2025 are dismissed.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
