Bombay High Court
None 1085 of 2012 on 23 June 1987
Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYTESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTIONTESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.1085 OF 2012
Vidyasagar Gupta
…Deceased
Pankaj Vidyasagar Gupta
…Petitioner
Mr T Salekar, i/b M/s Shah & Sanghavi, for the Petitioner.
PC:-
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, JDATED:
20th February 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The Petitioner is the son of the deceased Vidyasagar Gupta, who died on 23rd June 1987. The Petitioner filed this Petition seeking Letters of Administration to the properties and credits of the deceased. The heirs and legal representatives cited in the Petition were the deceased’s widow Asharani, who has since herself passed away, the Petitioner, another son Sunil, a married daughter Latika, who died on 24th August 1996, and her two adult children Prateek and Aanchal. The grant was issued on 12th July 2013.
2. It seems that in his lifetime the deceased purchased land CTS No.307/67B, Plot No.60 of about 7963 square meters at Link Road, Malad (West), Taluka Borivali along with others. He granted development rights to one Sohanlal Melaram Holdings Private Limited, which constructed buildings on that land. The flat owners have formed themselves into three different societies. There is an Affidavit of 6th December 2017 of the Petitioner in which he says that the deceased received the entire consideration in regard to this development agreement. However, he continued to be shown as the owner of that land. The land itself was inadvertently omitted, the Petitioner says, from the schedule of the properties. The societies now desire a conveyance and the Petitioner is agreeable to this since his father received the agreement consideration in his lifetime. However, in my view, the consenting Affidavits of other son Sunil and two children of the deceased married daughter will be necessary. Liberty to the Petitioner to mention the matter and have it listed after those consent Affidavits are obtained.
(G. S. PATEL, J)