Bombay High Court
ROHIT UDAY BHAGWATversusUrmila Laxman Thatte
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The interim application is allowed, dispensing with the surety requirement and directing the issuance of letters of administration with the will annexed, subject to the applicant’s undertaking.
Summary
The applicant, Rohit Uday Bhagwat, filed an interim application seeking the court’s dispensation from providing a surety for two non‑consenting legatees, Rekha and Rahul Limaye, and directing the issuance of letters of administration with the will annexed. The petition for letters of administration had originally been opposed by Rekha, who filed a caveat that was later dismissed, and the applicant argued that the petition was effectively unopposed. The Testamentary Department had ordered the applicant to justify the surety for the non‑consenting legatees under Rule 422 of the Bombay High Court (OS) Rules, 1980. The applicant undertook not to alienate the legatees’ share and to furnish the required bond and indemnity. The court held that the applicant’s undertaking satisfied the requirements and allowed the interim application, dispensing with the surety and directing the grant of letters of administration, subject to the applicant furnishing the undertaking in the prescribed format.
Issues considered
- Whether the court may dispense with the requirement of a surety for non‑consenting/unpaid legatees under Rule 422 of the Bombay High Court (OS) Rules, 1980.
- Whether the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed can be made in favour of the applicant despite the lack of consent from the legatees.
- Whether the applicant’s undertaking to protect the interests of the non‑consenting legatees suffices to satisfy the statutory requirements.
Subjects
- letters of administration
- will annexed
- surety
- non‑consenting legatee
- interim application
- Bombay High Court Rules
- probate
Judgment
2026:BHC-OS:20122
1/4 902 IA-4555-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4555 OF 2026
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 585 OF 2014
Rohit Uday Bhagwat … Applicant
Vs.
Urmila Laxman Thatte … Respondent
_______
Ms. Seema Hunnurkar i/b Ms. Anjali Purav for Petitioner.
_______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant seeks the following substantial
reliefs :
“a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to dispense with the
justifying surety of non-consenting/unpaid legatees viz. 1)
Rekha Ramchandra Limaye and 2) Rahul Ramchandra
Limaye, in view of the undertaking given by the Applicant
(Orig. Petitioner) in Para No. 10 to 12 of present Interim
Application.
b) Direct the department to issue Grant of Letters of
Administration with the Will annexed of the
deceased in favour of the Applicant.”
2. Heard Ms. Hunnurkar, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Sairaj
2/4 902 IA-4555-2026.DOC
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant has pointed out that the captioned
Testamentary Petition has been filed for Letters of Administration along with last
Will and testament of one Urmila Laxman Thatte (deceased).
4. Ms. Hunnurkar has submitted that the Petition was originally opposed by
one Rekha Ramchandra Limaye (daughter/step-daughter). Ms. Hunnurkar has
pointed out that though caveat was filed initially by Rekha to oppose the grant in
favour of the Petitioner, the said caveat was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the application filed to
set aside the order of dismissal was rejected. She therefore, submits that the said
Testamentary Petition was unopposed since none of the legal heirs of the
deceased had filed any caveat to oppose the same.
6. Ms. Hunnurkar then submitted that the grant is not being issued in view of
the fact that the said Rekha Ramchandra Limaye and Rahul Ramchandra Limaye
have not come forward to consent to the said grant.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicant has invited my attention to the order
passed by the Officer on Special Duty of Testamentary Department which is
dated 23rd February, 2026, the same records as follows :
Sairaj
3/4 902 IA-4555-2026.DOC
“1. Petitioner to correct the dates in
administration bond and re-upload the same.
Furthermore, corrections must be initialed by the
petitioner, surety and notary.
2. Petitioner to give the list of the
legatees/beneficiaries, who is/are entitled for the
legacy under the Will. The petitioner to take steps to
justify the surety to Administration Bond, in respect
of the share of non-consenting legatee -Rekha
under the Will of the deceased, vide Rule 422 of the
Bombay High Court (OS) Rules, 1980. Hence, the
petition is adjourned for the steps.
3. S. O. to 11.03.2026.”
8. It is pursuant to this order that the Applicant has filed the present Interim
Application setting out the manner in which the Applicant will justify/keep
secure the interest of said Rekha and Rahul in the property in the credits of
deceased. This is to be found in paragraph nos. 10 and 12 of the present Interim
Application. For the ease of reference, the said paragraphs are set out below:
“10. I say that the grant of Letters of Administration
with Will annexed in my favour will neither
prejudice the interests of the non-consenting
legatees nor defeat any other line of succession.
12. I further say and undertake that I shall not sell,
transfer, alienate. encumber, or part with
possession of the movable and immovable
properties bequeathed to Rekha Ramchandra
Sairaj
4/4 902 IA-4555-2026.DOC
Limaye and Rahul Ramchandra Limaye, forming
part of the estate of the deceased, in order to secure
and protect the interests of the said unpaid legatees,
namely Rekha Ramchandra Limaye and Rahul
Ramchandra Limaye. I further undertake to file and
furnish compliance of the same before this Hon'ble
Court.12. I further undertake to execute the
necessary bond and furnish the necessary
indemnity to the satisfaction of the Testamentary
Registrar in respect of legacy of Rekha Ramchandra
Limaye and Rahul Ramchandra Limaye.”
9. Having due regard to the above and in my view, the Applicant is justified
in praying for the dispensation as sought for.
10. Accordingly, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses
(a) and (b).
11. It is clarified that the Applicant shall first furnish an undertaking in the
appropriate format before this Order is given effect to the officer of the
Prothonotary and Senior Master or such other officer of this Court who is so
authorized.
12. Interim Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
Sairaj
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.