Bombay High Court
Mahendra Pamananad Karwat - Applicant vs Vinodkumar Parmanand Karwat And Anr. on 24 February, 2026
2026:BHC-OS:5047
IA/1360/2021
Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1360 OF 2021
JYOTI
PRAKASH
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
PRAKASH
PAWAR
IN
PAWAR Date:
2026.02.24
15:02:51 +0530
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 379 OF 1985
Mahendra Parmanand Karwat .. Applicant
V/s.
1. Vinodkumar Parmanand Karwat
2. Arvind Parmanand Karwat .. Respondents
_______________________________________
Ms. Gayatri Sharma i/b B. B. Parekh for the Applicant.
Mr. Vaibhav Charalwar a/w Ms. Sonali Kamble i/b Ms. Priyanka Chaurasia
for Respondent no. 2.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
RESERVED ON : 18th FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th FEBRUARY 2026
ORDER:
1. The present Interim Application has been preferred under Section 301 read with Section 87 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, inter alia, seeking directions for disclosure and rendition of accounts of Respondent no. 2, who is the sole surviving Executor of the last Will and Testament dated 4th December 1979 of the Deceased, late Mr. Parmanand Mohanlal Karwat (the Will), which was duly probated by this Court by an order dated 25th September 1985. The present Interim Application also seeks the removal and substitution of Respondent no. 2 as Executor on the ground Page 1 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat that he is allegedly intermeddling with the estate of the Deceased and has purportedly created forged and fabricated documents, on the basis of which he now claims a share in the estate, thereby obstructing its due administration and distribution amongst the beneficiaries under the Will, including the Applicant.
2. The Applicant and Respondent no. 2 are step-brothers and sons of the Deceased. Under the Will, the Deceased had appointed four persons as Executors thereof. However, prior to the grant of probate, two of the named Executors relinquished their office. Consequently, probate of the Will was granted by this Court on 25th September 1985 in favour of the remaining two Executors, namely, Mr. Vinodkumar Karwat and Respondent no. 2, Mr. Arvind Karwat. Mr. Vinodkumar Karwat expired on 14 th September 2020, and, thereafter, Respondent no. 2 remains the sole surviving Executor of the Will.
3. The present Interim Application was filed on 25 th February 2021. The same was allowed by an order dated 25 th February 2022, whereby, Respondent no. 2 was removed as the Executor, and in his place Mr. Kamlesh Karvat (son of the Applicant and legal heir of the Deceased) and Mr. Kishore Karwat (also a legal heir of the Deceased) came to be appointed as the new Executors of the Will. It appears that on the said date, Respondent no. 2 was not represented by his Advocate. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent no. 2 Page 2 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat challenged the said order before the Division Bench of this Court. By a subsequent order dated 5th August 2022, the Division Bench did not quash or set aside the order dated 25th February 2022 but instead, kept the operation thereof in abeyance for the reasons recorded therein, and restored the present Interim Application to file, remitting the same to this Court for reconsideration on merits.
4. Briefly stated, the case of the Applicant is that, following the grant of probate on 25th September 1985, Respondent no. 2, in his capacity as Executor, has failed to render accounts and complete the administration and distribution of the estate of the Deceased. The principal ground urged in the present Interim Application for seeking the removal and substitution of Respondent no. 2 as Executor is that, after the demise of Mr. Vinodkumar Karwat, Respondent no. 2 has purportedly sought to create a tenancy in respect of Flat nos. 10 and 11 (said flats) in the name of his mother, Mrs. Nirmala Karwat (Nirmala), purportedly with a view to obstructing the distribution of the said flats in accordance with the Will. The Applicant submits that he and other family members were taken by surprise upon receiving a letter dated 20 th November 2020, wherein, for the first time, Respondent no. 2 asserted that he had been residing in the said flats as a tenant, together with Nirmala, since the past 40 years. The Applicant contends that, by making such assertions, Respondent no. 2 has sought to assert personal rights in respect of the said flats, which form part of the Page 3 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat estate of the Deceased and which were otherwise liable to be sold and the proceeds thereof distributed equally amongst the five sons of the Deceased, including the Applicant and Respondent no. 2, as had been done in respect of certain other flats in the same building. Applicant relies upon the said letter dated 20th November 2020 as constituting the cause of action for the present Interim Application.
5. Ms. Gayatri Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, has invited my attention to the Will and, in particular, Clause 20 thereof. Under the said clause, the Deceased has bequeathed his two immovable properties mentioned therein - one being " Karwat Cottage"
situated at Tilak Road, Ghatkopar, Mumbai - 400077, and the other, situated in Gujarat (which is not the subject matter of the present dispute) - equally amongst his five sons. She submits that, notwithstanding this express bequest, Respondent no. 2 has purportedly sought to create a tenancy in respect of the said flats in favour of Nirmala and, by relying upon such alleged tenancy, is obstructing the sale of the said flats and the distribution of the sale proceeds in accordance with the Will. According to her, such conduct constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties cast upon Respondent no. 2 in his capacity as Executor. She further submits that, by asserting personal rights in respect of estate property, Respondent no. 2 has acted contrary to the terms of the Will and the wishes of the Deceased. On this basis, she submits that Page 4 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat Respondent no. 2 is liable to be removed and substituted as Executor under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav Charalwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no. 2, submits that the present Interim Application is wholly misconceived, untenable, and not maintainable in law. He submits that the Applicant is guilty of gross suppression of material facts and has failed to place before this Court full and true particulars necessary for adjudication. According to him, such deliberate suppression is fatal to the present Interim Application and, on this ground alone, the Applicant is disentitled to any equitable relief and the Interim Application is liable to be dismissed.
7. He submits that, as already set out in his client's reply dated 29 th August 2022, the entire estate of the Deceased has been administered in favour of all the beneficiaries under the Will, and which had also accepted the same and nothing remained to be administered. He therefore points out that there was neither any need nor any occasion for Respondent no. 2 to file a statement to that effect and/or render formal accounts to the other beneficiaries, since there was no dispute between them in that regard. However, he submits that, if this Court were to so direct, his client would comply with such direction and file a full and complete disclosure, setting out the manner in which the entire estate of the Deceased was administered. Page 5 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat
8. In response to the allegation of forgery and fabrication of tenancy in respect of the said flats, he vehemently argues that his client has done no such thing. Instead, he submits that the Applicant has approached this Court with unclean hands and deliberately failed to place the true and correct factual position on record which is that Nirmala and Respondent no. 2 have been residing in the said flats since the 1970's together with the Deceased. In support, he relies on the following:
(i) The papers and proceedings of Testamentary Petition no. 379 of 1985 filed by the two Executors, as far back as in 1985, in which a categoric statement has been made (in paragraph 10 thereof) that Respondent no. 2 and Nirmala reside in Karwat Cottage;
(ii) The Consent Affidavit dated 30th May 1985 filed by Nirmala in which she is expressly stated to be residing in Karwat Cottage;
(iii) The Affidavit of the Applicant (also dated 30 th May 1985) filed in Testamentary Petition no. 379 of 1985. By relying on this affidavit, it is asserted that the Applicant is aware of the contents of the papers and proceedings thereof as also the above-referred Consent Affidavit of Nirmala; Page 6 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat
(iv) Copy of rent receipts in respect of the said flats issued in favour of Nirmala by the Deceased, in his handwriting and signed by him, as Landlord of Karwat Cottage. By way of sample, Respondent no. 2 has annexed rent receipts for the months of December 1979, February 1980, March 1981, and March 1982.
9. Thus, Mr. Charalwar submits that Respondent no. 2 had been residing with Nirmala in the said flats even during the lifetime of the Deceased. He adds that even after his demise, Respondent no. 2 and Nirmala continued to reside in the said flats. He further submits that even after the demise of Nirmala on 10th August 2019, Respondent no. 2 continues to reside in the said flats. He states that such possession of his client was always within the knowledge of the Applicant and the other family members. Hence, it is entirely false and dishonest on the part of the Applicant to assert that he became aware of this position, only upon receipt of the said letter dated 20 th November 2020.
10. Mr. Charalwar then invites my attention to a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18th March 2002 (MoU) which has been executed by all five brothers in favour of one, M/s. Rajratna Builders (developer). He submits that under this MoU, the five brothers had permitted the developer to construct additional floors on Karwat Cottage by utilising the unused FSI Page 7 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat and thereafter sell the said flats. He points out that the five brothers received consideration of Rs. 45 lakhs under this MoU which amount has since also been distributed equally between them, in accordance with the wishes of the Deceased, as set out in Clause 20 of the Will. He adds that upon this distribution, the entire estate of the Deceased stood administered.
11. He also invites my attention to paragraph 5 of the present Interim Application, wherein the Applicant has expressly admitted that Nirmala had been residing in the said flats, albeit, with an erroneous caveat that such possession was subject to the stipulation contained in the Will. He therefore submits that, no case of forgery and/or fabrication has been made out. He adds that the Applicant has also failed to make out any case under Section 301 of the Succession Act which would warrant the removal of Respondent no. 2 as Executor of the Will of the Deceased. In support of his contentions, he relies on the decision of this Court in Dr. Subhada Mithilesh and Anr. v. Prabhakar Deolankar 1. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the present Interim Application.
12. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material placed on record. It is an admitted position that Respondent no. 2 has not rendered any accounts pursuant to the grant of probate in his favour, by the order dated 25 th September 1985 passed by this Court. This position has also been fairly conceded by Respondent no. 2. 1 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21424 Page 8 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat Notwithstanding his contention that the estate of the Deceased has been fully administered to the satisfaction of the beneficiaries, Respondent no. 2, in his capacity as Executor, was under a statutory obligation, in terms of Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to prepare and file a full and true inventory of the estate of the Deceased and render proper accounts of its administration. Such statutory obligation cannot be dispensed with merely on Respondent no. 2's assertion that the estate stood administered to the satisfaction of the beneficiaries. Respondent no. 2 is, therefore, bound to comply with the mandate of Section 317 of the Succession Act and furnish a full and proper inventory and account of the estate and the manner in which it has been administered.
13. However, insofar as the prayer seeking removal of Respondent no. 2 as the Executor is concerned, I find considerable merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of Respondent no. 2. The Applicant has failed to make out any case warranting such removal. On the contrary, the documents placed on record, prima facie indicate that Nirmala and Respondent no. 2 were residing in the said flats even during the lifetime of the Deceased and continued to reside therein thereafter. Following the demise of Nirmala, Respondent no. 2 has continued to remain in possession of the said flats. The documents produced by Respondent no. 2 further prima facie suggest that Nirmala was recognised as a tenant in respect of the said flats at least since 1979.
Page 9 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat
14. That apart, from the documents that are shown to me, it is not in dispute that the Applicant was aware that Nirmala and Respondent no. 2 were residing in the said flats. If, as now contended, the said flats were required to be sold in accordance with the Will, no satisfactory explanation has been offered as to why no steps were taken by the Applicant or the other beneficiaries to assert such rights at any point of time, including when other flats in Karwat Cottage were sold. Equally, no explanation has been provided as to why no action was initiated during Nirmala's lifetime seeking recovery of possession of the said flats, or why the said flats were not dealt with when the beneficiaries entered into transactions with a developer in respect of Karwat Cottage. Further, if the Applicant genuinely believed that the occupation of the said flats was contrary to the Will, it is unclear why no proceedings for eviction or recovery of possession have been initiated to date. The absence of any satisfactory explanation for these material omissions casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the Applicant's present contentions.
15. It is also material to note that the Applicant failed to disclose the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties, which was a relevant and material document. The suppression of such material facts disentitles the Applicant from seeking discretionary and equitable relief from this Court. The documents also clearly establish that the Applicant has Page 10 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat suppressed material facts and has approached this Court with unclean hands, advancing a case that is demonstrably false.
16. Even otherwise, a plain reading of the Will, and in particular Clause 20 thereof, indicates that only ownership rights in Karwat Cottage were bequeathed equally to the five sons of the Deceased. Such bequest would necessarily be subject to the existing possessory and occupancy rights of persons residing in the premises, including Nirmala and, thereafter, Respondent no. 2. The Applicant's contention that Respondent no. 2 has wrongfully usurped estate property is, therefore, not supported by the material presently on record.
17. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the Applicant has failed to make out any case warranting the removal of Respondent no. 2 as Executor. This conclusion is also supported by the decision of this Court in Dr. Subhada Mithilesh (supra), wherein it has been held that an Executor should not be removed lightly, and that there must be clear and cogent material demonstrating misconduct, mismanagement, or conduct prejudicial to the estate or the due execution of the Will. Mere allegations, loss of confidence, or dissatisfaction on the part of beneficiaries are not sufficient grounds for removal of an Executor, particularly when the testator has reposed confidence in such person by appointing him under the Page 11 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 ::: IA/1360/2021 Mahendra Karwat vs. Arvind Karwat Will. In the present case, no such material has been placed on record to justify the removal of Respondent no. 2.
18. In the circumstances, the following order is passed:
:: ORDER ::
(i) Respondent no. 2 is directed to furnish a full and true inventory of the estate of late Mr. Parmanand Mohanlal Karwat, administered by him pursuant to the grant of probate dated 25 th September 1985. Respondent no. 2 shall also render complete and proper accounts setting out the manner in which the estate has been administered. This shall be done on or before 15 th April 2026.
(ii) The prayer seeking removal of Respondent no. 2 as Executor and his substitution by an Administrator pendente lite is rejected.
Consequently, the appointment of the two persons made by the order dated 25th February 2022, which was kept in abeyance by the order of the Division Bench dated 5th August 2022, shall not survive.
(iii) The Interim Application is disposed of in the above terms.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )
Mandar M.
Page 12 of 12
------------------------------------------ Order dated 24th February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:49:48 :::