Bombay High Court
Abbot Anthony Quinny vs Francis Quinny on 12 November, 2025
1-MPT-278-2023+.doc
Sbw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.278 OF 2023
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.3051 OF 2018
Abbot Anthony Quinny ]
of Bombay Indian Inhabitant ]
Borivali Shalimar Apartment ]
2 Floor, Helly Cross Road
nd
]
I.C.Colony, Borivali (W), ]
Bombay-400 103. ] ... Petitioner
v/s.
1. Francis Quinny ]
2. Zealia Francis Quinny ]
3. Zoey Francis Quinny ]
4. Zeon Francis Quinny ]
A-3 Rameshwar Apartment ]
Four Bungalow Road, Near Garden]
Rose Society, Andheri (W), ]
Bombay-400 058. ] ... Respondents
Mr. Diniar Madon, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. Ziyad Madon, Mr. Yashesh
Kamdar & Ms. Ujwala Deshmukh i/by Pradhan & Rao for Petitioners.
Mr. Snehal Shah, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. Yatin R. Shah & Mr. Akshay
Bobade for the Respondent.
AND
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.39 OF 2020
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.150 OF 2003
1. Francis Quinny ]
2. Zealia Francis Quinny ]
3. Zoey Francis Quinny ]
4. Zeon Francis Quinny ]
1/27
::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 :::
1-MPT-278-2023+.doc
A-3 Rameshwar Apartment ]
Four Bungalow Road, Near Garden]
Rose Society, Andheri (W), ]
Bombay-400 058. ] ... Petitioners
Versus
Abbot Anthony Quinny ]
of Bombay Indian Inhabitant ]
Borivali Shalimar Apartment ]
2nd Floor, Helly Cross Road ]
I.C.Colony, Borivali (W), ]
Bombay-400 103. ] ... Respondent
Mr. Snehal Shah, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. Yatin R. Shah & Mr. Akshay
Bobade for the Petitioners.
Mr. Diniar Madon, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. Ziyad Madon, Mr. Yashesh
Kamdar & Ms. Ujwala Deshmukh i/by Pradhan & Rao for Respondent.
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
RESERVED ON : 22ND AUGUST 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 12TH NOVEMBER 2025.
ORDER:
1) There are two Petitions concerning the devolution of interest in the estate Louis and Marceline, comprising extensive parcels of lands, in the western suburb of Mumbai, valued at several hundred crores.
2) Louis and Marceline were residents of Bombay. Louis expired on 14th March 1971 and Marceline - his wife expired on 15 th July 1988. Francis Quinny (Petitioner No.1 ) who married Lalita have two children: Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (daughters) and Petitioner No.4 2/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc (son). Francis claims that Lalita (who expired on 9 th November 2015) was the natural-born daughter of Louis and Marceline and therefore entitled to the estate; and Abbot who claims to be the nephew of Marceline asserts that Lalita is not the natural-born daughter to the deceased couple.
3) Miscellaneous Petition No. 278 of 2023 (MPT-278) has been instituted by Abbot Anthony Quinny (hereinafter referred to as "Abbot" for brevity), and is represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Madon.
4) Miscellaneous Petition No. 39 of 2020 (MPT-39) has been instituted by Francis and his children (hereinafter referred to as "Francis" or "Francis & Ch." for brevity), who claims to be the son-in- law of Louis and Marceline and consequently his children would be the grandchildren, claiming through their daughter Lalita (since deceased) and are represented by Senior Counsel Mr. Shah.
5) By MPT-278, Abbot challenges the grant of Letters of Administration dated 10th July 2019 issued in favour of Francis; whereas by MPT-39, Francis and his children challenge the grant of Probate in favour of Abbot.
6) Raising a preliminary contention, Mr. Shah submits that it is necessary to lead evidence to determine whether Lalita was the natural-born daughter of Louis and Marceline, in view of the 3/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc objection raised by Mr. Madon. According to him, such determination is essential for the proper adjudication of both Petitions.
7) In support of his submission, Mr. Shah relies upon the Order dated 16th March 2021, particularly paragraphs 10 and 12 thereof, read with paragraph 4 of the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17th January 2025, to contend that liberty had been granted to Francis.
8) Mr. Shah submits that Abbot disputes the documents relied upon by Francis viz.
(a) Bonafide cum Birth Certificate dated 22nd September
2012
(b) School Leaving Certificate dated 1st October 2012
(c) Ration Card dated 4th May 1983
(d) Passport of Lalita
(e) Marriage Registration Certificate
(f) Notice regarding Intimation of Marriage
(g) Gas connection letter dated 1985.
9) To contradict the above documents, Abbot relies upon several
documents to prove that Lalita was not the natural-born daughter of Louis and Marceline. The documents relied upon by Abbot are disputed by Francis.
10) Mr. Shah submits that this Court granted Letters of Administration to Francis on 10th July 2019 in respect of the entire estate of Louis Francis Misquitta, claiming through Lalita Francis 4/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc Quinny. In May 2019, when Francis approached the City Survey Authority to claim a share in certain properties and to record their names in the property registers, they were informed that Abbot had obtained a Probate from this Court in respect of the same property. Upon an application for the copy of the Probate, they discovered that Abbot had fabricated a document to falsely represent himself as the sole legal heir of Marceline Louis Misquitta. On the strength of that fabricated document, he was granted Probate by this Court on 29 th November 2003.
11) Mr. Shah contends Abbot's misrepresentation before this Court
- that he was the sole legal heir of Marceline Luios Misquitta - while suppressing the fact that Marceline and Louis had a married daughter, Lalita Francis Quinny, who was their lawful heir and legal representative, constitutes sufficient ground for revocation of the Probate.
12) It is further submitted that by suppressing material facts and misclassifying the proceeding as an uncontested matter, Abbot has taken undue advantage of the process of this Court process, for uncontested matters, to secure a Probate in the Testamentary Petition No.150 of 2003.
13) Mr. Shah asserts that Marceline was residing with her daughter Lalita until she expired, and therefore, there was no 5/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc conceivable reason for her to make a bequest in favour of Abbot a very distant relative.
14) Mr. Shah submits that the Probate granted to the Abbot by this Court on 29th November 2003 was obtained by practicing a fraud upon this Court, and hence deserves to be revoked.
15) Mr. Shah contends that MPT-278 also questions the maintainability of MPT-39 on the ground of limitation. He contends that the issue whether MPT-39 is barred by limitation involves a mixed question of law and fact, thereby necessitating the leading of evidence.
16) It is further submitted that Francis has taken contradictory stands by not disputing the Louis's Will dated 27th February 1971 and on the other by maintaining that Louis died intestate. There are also allegations that Abbot made false statements and mislead the Court to obtain the Probate of the Will of Marceline.
17) Mr. Shah contends that the aforesaid contentions raised by either party necessitates leading of evidence to determine whether Lalita is the natural-born daughter of Louis and Marceline.
18) Per Contra, Mr. Madon contends that there is ample material on record to establish that Lalita was not the natural-born daughter of Louis and Marceline. He submits that the insistence on leading evidence is merely a dilatory tactic intended to delay and deprive 6/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc Abbot of the benefits conferred upon him under the Will of Marceline.
19) Abbot has sufficiently demonstrated that Lalita was not the daughter of Louis and Marceline Misquitta. He submits that it is unnecessary to enter into this question as it is an entirely secondary issue, since Francis and Ch contentions are liable to be rejected on the basis of the following threshold issues, neither of which requires any evidence to be led, as they rest upon facts admitted by Francis and Ch themselves.
20) Mr. Madon submits that the Letters of Administration dated 10th July 2019 were granted to Francis on the basis of two categorical assertions: (i) that Lalita was the daughter of Louis and Marceline, and (ii) Louis had died intestate. He submits that both assertions are false and incorrect to the knowledge of Francis, and no documentary evidence has been produced to establish that Lalita was the daughter of Louis and Marceline. According to him, Louis expired on 14th March 1971, leaving behind Marceline as his only sole heir and legal representative. By his Will dated 27 th February 1971 Louis bequeathed his entire estate to Marceline, which itself establishes that Louis and Marceline had no children. Hence, the claim that Lalita was their daughter is patently false.
21) Mr. Madon submits that Lalita was, in fact, the daughter of one Bhagwandas and Kaushalya. Bhagwandas the Accountant of Louis 7/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc had two sons, Gopal and Prakash, and a daughter, Lalita. Bhagawandas and Sheela were Hindus and Sindhi by religion. Lalita was born on 18th October 1961 and her birth certificate records the name of her biological parents. After Bhagwandas passed away, Kaushalya went to live with her brother and left Lalita in the care of Louis and Marceline. Lalita was baptized in the year 1963 at the Church of our Lady Immaculate Conception, which duly recorded her baptism. Mr. Madon points out that baptism signifies conversion to Christianity. The Church has duly recorded her marriage with Petitioner No. 1 - Francis Quinny, in the same register.
22) He further submits that the existence of Louis's Will dated 27 th February 1971 is undisputed and has been relied upon by the Francis in their rejoinder to Interim Application No. 562 of 2020. Thus, Francis's claim that Louis died intestate, entitling Lalita and through her Francis to obtain the Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased, is falsified. This Court, by its orders dated 8 th February 2021 and 16th March 2021, has prima facie observed that the assertion by Francis that Lalita was the daughter of Louis and Marceline appears incorrect.
23) Mr. Madon points out that the original birth register, confirms that Lalita was born to Bhagawandas and Kausalya, not to Louis and Marceline. He submits that the Will of Marceline was known to all 8/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc persons close to the family, including Lalita and Francis. Abbot having acted on that Will since 1988, has dealt with various properties forming a part of the Marceline's estate. He emphasizes paragraph 3 of the Petition, which reveals that Francis was aware of the Probate granted on dated 29th November 2003, yet they suppressed this fact while filing this Petition in May 2018 - warranting dismissal of the Petition on this ground alone.
24) Mr. Madon submits that the "bonafide-cum-birth certificate"
issued by Marry Immaculate Girls High School, Borivali, merely certifies that Lalita was a student there and that her date of birth was 18th October 1961. It does not name her parents. Adoption, he submits, is not recognized under Christian law, and the certificate naming her as "Misquitta Lalita Louis" cannot establish parentage.
25) The Gas Consumer Card relied upon by Francis merely reflects that Lalita resided with Louis and Marceline; it does not name her biological parents.
26) Similarly, the reliance on Lalita's passport is misplaced - it only reflects that she was in the care of care of Louis and Marceline. The passport does not name her biological parents.
27) The death certificate too omits the names of the parents, with the mother' name recorded as 'not available'.9/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 :::
1-MPT-278-2023+.doc
28) The family tree produced and relied upon is also stated to be incorrect.
29) Mr. Madon submits that under the personal laws applicable to Christians between 18th October 1961, (Lalita's birth) and 15 th July 1988 (her death), adoption was not legally recognized. Therefore, the assertion that Lalita was the adopted daughter of Marceline cannot be accepted.
30) In any case, there is no specific plea that Lalita was adopted, nor has any documentary evidence been produced to support such a claim. Significantly, Lalita herself never asserted during her entire lifetime that she was the daughter of Louis and Marceline.
31) Mr. Madon further submits that godchildren have no right, under any personal law, custom, or practice among Christians, to inherit the estate of the deceased, even in intestate succession. Consequently, Lalita had no locus to claim a share in Marceline's estate and was not entitled to be served with a citation in Testamentary Petition No.150 of 2003. Notably, Lalita never made any claim on the estate during her lifetime.
32) It is contended that the present Petition has been filed after an inordinate delay and is actuated by mala fides. Francis and his children, being interlopers, have concocted a false story to obtain the Letters of Administration dated 10th July 2019. Despite being aware 10/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc of the Probate being granted in 2003, they did not serve Abbot with a citation. Francis and Co have also failed to explain why no steps were taken for over two decades after Marceline's death in 1988 and even after Lalita's death in 2015.
33) Mr. Madon submits that it is inconceivable that, for over 32 years, Lalita - if truly the daughter of Louis and Marceline - would not have challenged Abbot's administration of the estate. The Probate was granted in favour of Abbot in 2003, yet no proceedings were initiated until 29th November 2019.
34) Mr. Madon draws attention to the stark discrepancies between the Wills produced by Francis and Abbot, as under:
Louis Will dated 27.02.1971 Will dated 27.02.1971 produced by produced by Francis Abbot
"2. I have my wife firm Marceline "2. I have my wife Mrs. Marceline Louis Misquitta aged about 59 years Louis Misquitta aged about 53 years who is living. I have one children or who is living. I have no children or child or children of a pre-deceased child or children of a pre-deceased child or children living Her name is child or children living. Lalita her age is 11 years ago.
He submits that the Francis's false representations have been established, including that:
(a) Lalita was the daughter of Louis and Marceline, and Petitioner Nos. 2 - 4 are their grandchildren.
(b) Louis died intestate;
(c) A diligent search for a Will was made by but none was found; and
(d) Francis and Ch were entitled to the estate of Louis on the 11/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc ground of intestacy.
35) He further points out the falsity of the Francis's case:
(a) The alleged Will of Louis dated 27.02.1971, showing Lalita as their daughter, is fabricated.
(b) Francis and Ch claim entitlement to Louis' estate on the basis of the Letters of Administration dated 10.07.2019, which is untenable since Louis died leaving a valid Will.
(c) Francis falsely stated that they obtained a copy of Louis's Will from the records of the ULC Authorities - an admission later retracted and recorded by this Court in in paragraphs 4 to 6 and 8 of the Order dated 16.03.2021 (Exhibit "0").
36) Mr. Madon submits that the reliance on Lalita's passport is baseless, as it was issued on 28th September 2011 - long after both Louis (1971) and Marceline (1988) had expired - without any physical verification. He contends that the Revocation Petition, filed on 18th October 2019, is barred by law of limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of three years from the date when the right to apply accrues.
37) Mr. Madon finally submits that the estate of Louis comprises vast properties over which several multi-storeyed buildings have been constructed and sold to third parties who are living there for over four decades. The BMC has issued Intimation of Disapproval, Commencement Certificate and Occupation Certificates for eleven such buildings. Numerous third-party rights have been created, and it is inconceivable Lalita, if indeed the daughter, would have 12/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc remained silent throughout. Francis and Ch, he submits, have no right or title to the estates of Louis or Marceline and are mere interlopers attempting to unjustly enrich themselves through this litigation.
Suppression and false statements
38) Mr. Madon submits that the Will of Louis Misquitta, annexed to the reply filed in MPT-39, establishes that Louis did not die intestate. He contends that the Francis obtained the Letters of Administration without annexing Louis's Will, thereby suppressing material facts and by making false statements. On this ground alone, he submits that the grant of Letters of Administration dated 19th July 2019 deserves to be set aside.
39) Francis, it is submitted, made the following false statements in Testamentary Petition No. 3051 of 2018 (TP-3051) (Refer Ex. A Pg. 104 of the Reply in MPT-39) with a view to obtain the said Letters of Administration:
(a) In paragraph 3 of TP-3051, it is stated that Louis Francis Misquitta had died intestate and that a due and diligent search had been made for a Will but none was found. However, in Review Petition (Testamentary) No. 2 of 2022 (paragraph 8 and Ground H), it is stated that a copy of the last Will and Testament dated 27.02.1971 was obtained by the Francis in the last week of July 2019 on the basis of an RTI Application dated 10.06.2019. Both statements - viz., that the deceased Louis Francis Misquitta died intestate and that a diligent search had been made for the Will - are, therefore, false and 13/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc misleading.
(b) In paragraphs 4 of TP -3051, the Francis and Co have stated that Lalita was the daughter of Louis Francis Misquitta.
This statement, it is submitted, is demonstrably false and is dealt with in detail subsequently.
(c) Francis has also suppressed the factum of the execution of the Will dated 27.02.1971 by Louis Francis Misquitta, despite being aware that under the said Will Louis had not bequeathed any portion of his estate to Lalita.
MPT- 39 was filed on 18.10.2019.
40) Francis and Ch have in Review Petition (Testamentary) No. 2 of 2022, admitted that they were aware of the existence of the Last Will and Testament dated 27.02.1971 by which Louis Francis Misquitta had bequeathed his entire estate solely and exclusively to his wife Marceline Louis Misquitta at the time of filing MPT-39.
41) Despite such knowledge, Francis has made the following false statements in MPT-39 with a view to seek revocation of the Probate granted on 29.11.2003 in favour of Abbot:
(a) In paragraph 5 of MPT-39, Francis and Ch state that Louis Misquitta has never executed a Will. This assertion is false in light of their own admission in paragraph 8 and Ground H of Review Petition (Testamentary) No. 2 of 2022 where they acknowledge having obtained a copy of the last Will dated 27.02.1971 in July 2019 pursuant to the RTI Application dated 10.06.2019. MPT-39 was filed only thereafter, on 18.10.2019.
(b) In paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 of MPT-39, Francis and Ch claim that Lalita was the daughter of Louis and Marceline.14/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:51:59 :::
1-MPT-278-2023+.doc
(c) In paragraph 4 of the Affidavit in Rejoinder in Interim Application No. 562 of 2020 in MPT-39 (annexed at Pg. 175 of MPT-
278), Francis and Ch claimed to have obtained a certified copy of the Will of Louis Francis Misquitta dated 27th February 1971 from the ULC Authorities. However, as recorded in the Orders dated 15.03.2021 and 16.03.2021, this statement was found to be false, since the RTI Application dated 10.06.2019 - on the basis of which the copy of the Will was allegedly obtained -was in fact made by one Mr. Ganesh Shinde to the Talathi. A copy of the RTI Application dated 10.06.2019 forms Annexure A4 to the Order dated 16.03.2021.
42) Louis Francis Misquitta died on 14.05.1971 (Refer Ex. A@Pg. 114 to the Reply in MPT-39), leaving behind his last Will and Testament dated 27.02.1971. (Refer Ex. M Pg. 240 to the Reply in MPT-39) Accordingly, it cannot be said that Louis Francis Misquitta died intestate.
43) Paragraph 2 of the said Will at Pgs. 242 and 252 of the Reply in MPT - 39 further records that Louis and Marceline had no living or pre-deceased children.
44) Paragraph 3 of the same Will at Pgs. 243 and 252 of the Reply in MPT-39) further records that the entirety of the estate of Louis Francis Misquitta was bequeathed solely and exclusively to Marceline Misquitta.
45) Francis has produced, as Exhibit 7 (at pages 575 to the Affidavit in Rejoinder in MPT-39), a version of the said Will dated 15/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc 27.02.1971 which, it is submitted is a fabricated document. The interpolations are visibly evident in Clause 2 (at Page 577 of the Affidavit in Rejoinder in MPT-39).
46) However, even without delving into the genuineness or authenticity of this fabricated version, the very existence and disclosure of the said Will dated 27th February 1971 by Francis demonstrates that the application made for Letters of Administration to the estate of Louis Francis Misquitta was based on a false and incorrect assertion that Louis had died intestate. On this ground alone, the Letters of Administration granted on 10.07.2019 deserve to be revoked, having no legal sanctity.
47) Furthermore, even assuming the fabricated version to be considered, (paragraph 3 at Pg. 578 of the Affidavit in Rejoinder in MPT-39) thereof also records that the entirety of the estate of Louis Francis Misquitta was bequeathed solely and exclusively to Marceline Misquitta.
48) Accordingly, whether on relies upon the true or fabricated version of the Will dated 27th February 1971, the entire estate of Louis has admittedly devolved upon Marceline. Consequently, the Letters of Administration granted in favour of the Francis on 10 th July 2019 incorrectly describe the estate of Louis Francis Misquitta as comprising the properties therein valued at Rs.409.50 crores. No 16/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc Letters of Administration could even have been granted to Francis in respect of such estate.
49) Francis now seeks to rely upon the said Letters of Administration - obtained by suppression and misrepresentation - as the foundation of their claim in the estate of Marceline and to seek revocation of the Probate granted to her Will dated 16.04.1988. The very basis of revocation Petition is thus a document devoid of legal sanctity and, therefore, the Petition must necessarily fail. If Francis is unable to demonstrate any interest in the estate of Marceline through the Letters of Administration, they are not entitled to any reliefs in MPT -39.
50) The following documents, in any event conclusively establish that Lalita was not the daughter of Louis and Marceline and consequently, has no caveatable interest in Marceline estate:
(i) The Birth Certificate produced by Francis, and the online records of the MCGM show that Lalita was born on 18th October 1961 to Bhagwandas and Kausalya (Refer Annexure M-1 to Order dated 8th February 2021 in I.A. No. 562 of 2020 in MPT-39 and Exhibit C at page 189 of the Reply in MPT-39).
(ii) The Medical Officer (Health), R/Central Ward, MCGM in his Report dated 13th March 2021 confirmed that the said Birth Certificate is accurate and consistent with the official records (Refer Annexure A-1 to Order dated 15th March 2021 in I.A. No. 562 of 2020 in MPT-39).
(iii) The Original Birth Register (produced before this Court for inspection, a copy of which was retained by the Court) establishes that Lalita was born to Bhagwandas 17/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc and Kausalya and not to Louis and Marceline (Refer Annexure A-1 to Order dated 15th March 2021 in I.A. No. 562 of 2020 in MPT-39).
(iv) The Baptism Certificate issued by the Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception on 24th January 2020 (Refer Exhibit E at page 192 of the Reply in MPT-39) records that Lalita was born to Bhagwandas and Kausalya alias Sheila, while Louis and Marceline are merely recorded as her Godparents.
(v) The last Will and Testament dated 16th April 1988 of Marceline Misquitta (Refer Exhibit B at page 131 of the Reply in MPT-39) records in paragraph 2 (at page 132) that Marceline had no children during her lifetime. Similarly, the true and correct Will of Louis Francis Misquitta dated 27th February 1971 (Refer Exhibit M at page 240 of the Reply in MPT-39) also records in paragraph 2 (at pages 242 and 252) that Louis and Marceline had no children during their lifetime.
(vi) The Death Certificate of Lalita (Refer Exhibit A at page 116 of the Reply in MPT-39) records that Lalita Francis Quinny expired on 9th November 2015. In the column for "Name of Mother," the entry reads "Not Available,"
and under "Name of Father/Husband," the name of her husband -- Francis Quinny (Petitioner No. 1) -- is recorded. Thus, even the official records of the MCGM contain no inconsistency.
MPT No. 39 of 2020 is barred by limitation.
51) The Probate granted on 29.11.2003 in favour of Abbot is annexed at Ex. B Pg. 17 to MPT-39. The stamp of the City Survey Office at the foot of this document records that this copy was furnished by that office on 15.10.2016 in response to an RTI Application. This clearly establishes that the Francis was aware of, and in possession of, a copy of the probate at least on 15.10.2016.
However, MPT-39 came to be filed on 18 th October 2019 - more than 18/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc three years after acquiring knowledge of the Probate.
52) Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs proceedings seeking revocation of a Probate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lynette Fernandes v. Gertie Mathias 1; Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat v. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe2; Nina Agarwalla v. Ashok Gupta & Ors.3 and Haripada Roy v. Subhash Chander Rewari 4, has held since the grant of Probate is an order in rem, the period of limitation commences from the date of its grant.
53) Even assuming that limitation were to be computed from the date of Francis's knowledge, his own showing indicates that he had knowledge of the said Probate on 15.10.2016. Accordingly, MPT-39 having been filed on 19th October 2019, is barred by limitation.
54) In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the MPT-39, Francis claims that in May 2018, he approached the City Survey Authority to claim a share in certain properties and for mutation of names in the record of rights. At that time, he was informed that such entries could not be effected since Abbot had already obtained a Probate in respect of the same properties. It is further contended that upon learning of this fact, Francis applied for and obtained a copy of the Probate under the RTI Act sometime around May 2018.
1 (2018) 1 SCC 271 2 (2020) 17 SCC 284 3 (2013) 4 MahLJ 464 4 (2014) 2 MahLJ 234 19/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc
55) Having regard to the above timeline, the statements made in MPT-39 are ex facie false and appear to have been made with the intention of misleading the Court so as to conceal the delay in instituting the present Petition.
Delay and laches
56) Louis Francis Misquitta expired on 14th March 1971. The application for Letters of Administration to his estate was filed only in the year 2019 and granted on 10th July 2019--nearly forty-eight years after his demise--and that too on the basis of false and misleading statements.
57) Marceline Louis Misquitta expired on 15th July 1988, leaving behind her Last Will and Testament dated 16th April 1988, in respect of which Probate had already been granted on 29th November 2003. The present Revocation Petition, seeking to set aside the said Probate dated 29th November 2003, has been instituted on 18th October 2019, i.e., more than sixteen years after the Probate had been granted.
58) Lalita, who claims to be the daughter of Louis and Marceline, expired on 9th November 2015--forty-four years after the death of Louis and twenty-seven years after the death of Marceline. Significantly, during her lifetime, Lalita did not file any application or proceeding of any nature whatsoever asserting any right or claim in 20/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc the estate of Louis or Marceline, despite being projected as their sole surviving child.
59) In this context, it is relevant to note that according to Francis, the estate of Louis is valued at approximately ₹409.50 crores. Although Abbot disputes this valuation, it is undisputed that the estates of both Louis and Marceline comprised extensive and valuable properties. Nevertheless, despite the substantial value of these estates, Lalita never advanced any claim thereto during her lifetime, which clearly demonstrates her own understanding and acknowledgment that she had no right or entitlement in the estates of Louis or Marceline.
Whether Lalita was the daughter of Louis and Marceline Misquitta is irrelevant.
60) Mr. Madon submits that Francis claims that his father and Marceline were siblings. If that be so the he (Francis) and his wife Lalita would be first cousins. Consequently, such a marriage would fall within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity. This assertion itself demonstrates that Francis and Lalita could not in fact have been first cousins, since such a marriage is impermissible under law. While the Abbot does not seek to impugn the marriage between Francis and Lalita, he relies upon this circumstance to show that such a marriage, if claimed, would be within the prohibited degrees of 21/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc relationship, thereby establishing that the purported family tree is incorrect.
61) The parties are Roman Catholics. Section 88 of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 provides that nothing contained in the Act shall validate any marriage forbidden by the personal law of the parties. In Lakshmi Sanyal v. Sachit Kumar Dhar 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, in the context of a husband and wife whose parents were sisters, that such a marriage was void under canon law as being within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, and would be null and void unless an appropriate dispensation had been obtained from the Church. It is not the case of Francis and Ch that any such dispensation was ever granted.
62) Likewise, under Section 2(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1955, read with Item 35 of Part I and Item 37 of Part II of the First Schedule, a marriage between a man and his father's sister's daughter or a woman and her mother's brother's son is prohibited, unless a declaration to the contrary is issued in accordance with the Third Schedule thereto.
63) In any event, no other alleged heirs or claimants of Marceline have ever come forward asserting that citations were not issued to them, despite the extensive development of almost all the properties 5 AIR 1972 SC 2667 22/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc forming part of the estates of Louis and Marceline. This clearly demonstrates that there exist no heirs of Marceline other than those disclosed in the Probate Petition.
Lalita was not the daughter of Louis and Marceline:
64) Mr. Shah for Francis has alleged in oral arguments that the Abbot has admitted that Lalita was the adopted daughter of Louis and Marceline. This is incorrect. Abbot's actual statements are as follows:
(a) At Para 15/Pg. 355 of Rejoinder in MPT/278/2025, Abbot stated that "The said Lalita was allegedly adopted..."
(b) At Para 22 / Pg. 66 of Reply in MPT/39/2020, Abbot stated that "Therefore, it is not possible for the Petitioner to even claim that the said Lalita was the adopted daughter of the Marceline. In any event, no such claim of Lalita being the adopted daughter of Marceline has been made and accordingly, no documents to support any such alleged claim has been placed on record..."
65) The documents namely:
(a) Birth Certificate
(b) The Original Birth Register
(d) the Baptism Certificate issued on 24.01.2020 by the Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception
(e) The Marceline's Will dated 16.04.1988
(g) The Death Certificate of Lalita.
Referred particularly in paragraph 50 above that are on record 23/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc amply demonstrate that Lalita was not the daughter of Louis and Marceline. It is submitted that the birth certificate is conclusive proof of the identity of Lalita's parents. None of the documents relied upon by Francis and Ch can disprove the same.
66) In any event, none of the documents produced by the Francis prove that Lalita was the daughter of Louis and Marceline:
(a) The ration card
(b) The Certificate of Baptism
(c) The Bonafide-cum-Birth Certificate and School Leaving Certificate
(d) The Passport issued on 28.9.2011,
(e) The marriage certificate
67) It will be seen that nearly all the documents relied on by Francis and Ch have been procured as late as 2011-12 ostensibly with a view to make a claim to the estate of Louis and Marceline through Lalita.
Abbot's locus to seek Revocation of Letters of Administration:
68) Abbot is the sole beneficiary of Marceline's Will and has a grant of Probate in his favour.
69) Marceline would undoubtably have had a caveatable interest in the estate of Louis, both as his wife and as the sole beneficiary under his Will. Until the probate is set aside, Abbot is Marceline's sole beneficiary. Furthermore, the grant of letters of administration in 24/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc favour of the Francis directly conflicts with, and to that extent defeats, the line of succession in accordance with which the entire estate of Louis devolved - first on Marceline and thereafter upon Abbot. Abbot is therefore entitled to maintain the present Petition seeking revocation of Letters of Administration granted in respect of Louis' estate. [Refer Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008) 4 SCC 300 at Para 86(ii)].
70) Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Elizabeth Antony v. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera6 at Paras 6 & 9, as subsequently cited with affirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Birla (supra) at Para 102, has held that the absence of a caveatable interest does not, by itself, preclude a party from invoking Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to seek revocation of a grant, provided a sufficient case is made out.
Conclusion
71) Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the record, prima facie, the submissions of Mr. Madon appear cogent and convincing. However, the delay of nearly fifteen years in obtaining the Probate by Abbot does raise certain doubts and suspicion Marceline having expired in 1988 and Probate being obtained only in 2003. If Abbot was indeed the sole beneficiary of such a vast estate, 6 (2008) 1 SCC 267 25/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc the reason for this inordinate delay remains unexplained. Such delay raises suspicion. Moreover, in the present case there are no averments explaining delay. The delay of nearly fifteen years in my view raises suspicion, and I find that onus on Abbot (the propounder) has not been discharged.
72) Further, the family trees of Louis and Marceline indicate that they both belonged to large families, and it is surprising that none of the other relatives came forward to assert any claim. It is also not Abbot's case that the other legal heirs had furnished their no- objection to the grant of Probate in his favour.
73) Equally, the assertions made by Francis are not free from doubt. The rival contentions of both sides - particularly in regard to Lalita's parentage and her long inaction during her lifetime - necessitate the leading of evidence. Although, on a prima facie view, the case appears to favour Abbot, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to permit both parties to substantiate or disprove their respective claims through evidence.
74) I also find merit with Mr. Shah's contention that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, which can only be determined upon the evidence being led. To balance equities, Francis and Ch may be put to terms and held liable to bear costs of litigation if their claim is ultimately found to be baseless. At this stage, I am not 26/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 ::: 1-MPT-278-2023+.doc inclined to determine about the authenticity of documents relied upon without they being duly proved or disproved in evidence by the respective parties.
75) Accordingly, list the matter for framing of issues on 19 th November 2025.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) 27/27 ::: Uploaded on - 13/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/11/2025 20:52:00 :::