Calcutta High Court
For The vs Alankamony (Dead) Through Lrs. ... on 10 November, 2025
2023:CHC-OS:4534
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Testamentary & Intestate Jurisdiction)
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
IA No. GA 1 of 2024
With
IA No. GA 2 of 2025
In
PLA No. 471 of 2022
In The Goods Of :
Damodardas J. Wadhwa alias Damodardas Jerambhai Wadhwa,
(Deceased)
Mr. Suman Dutt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rupak Ghosh
Mr. Dwaipayan Basu Mullick
Ms. Nilanjana Adhya
Ms. Tanvi Luhariwala
Mr. Kailash Dhanuka
Ms. Ruchika Dhanuka
Ms. Sathi Kundu
.... For the applicant.
2
2023:CHC-OS:4534
Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debdut Mukherjee
Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta
Ms. Nairanjana Ghosh
Ms. Priyanshi Bainwala
...For the respondent/petitioner.
Hearing Concluded On : 16.09.2025 Judgment on : 10.11.2025 Krishna Rao, J.: -
1. The applicant Smt. Jayshree J. Wadhwa W/o Late Dilip Wadhwa, residing at Tivoli Court, Apartment No. 66, 10th Floor, 1/A, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata - 700 019 filed two applications being G.A. No.1 of 2024 for revocation of Letters of Administration in respect of the Estate of Late Damodardas J. Wadhwa granted by an order dated 20th July, 2023 and appointment of an independent person as an administrator in respect of the Estate of Late Damodardas J. Wadhwa and G.A. No. 2 of 2025 praying for interim order and mandatory injunction.
2. The applicant claims that at a family get together, the applicant came to know that Letters of Administration in respect of assets the estate of the deceased Damodardas J. Wadhwa was granted to Smt. Anusuya Pujara and that after her death on 13th February, 2024, her son Nirmal Pujara was claiming to be the sole owner of the joint family assets and properties on the basis of the Letters of Administration granted by this Court.3
2023:CHC-OS:4534
3. Mr. Suman Dutt, Learned Senior Advocate representing the applicant submits that the application for grant of Letters of Administration was prepared by suppressing vital facts and had obtained Letters of Administration by fraud. The petitioner has filed incomplete genealogical table and has not mentioned anything about the other surviving legal heirs of the deceased including the son and daughter of Dungershi J. Wadhwa and Kusum Asani. The petitioner in her application for grant of Letters of Administration made out a case that she is the only surviving heir of the deceased and no one else.
4. Mr. Dutt submits that this Court granted Letters of Administration to the petitioner considering that there were no other Class II heirs of the deceased. Damadordas J. Wadhwa was a member of Mitakshara coparcenary and since 2005 shared the coparcenary properties with his other brothers and sisters but the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court and no notices was served upon any of the legal heirs. The petitioner in her application has not stated that the assets and properties mentioned in the Affidavit-of-Assets were the sole and self-acquired property of Damodardas J. Wadhwa.
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.4
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, 5 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 6 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, 7 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 8 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 9 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."10
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:
11
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." 12
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;13
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 14 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. 15
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.)