The Bombay High Court has invalidated a grant of Letters of Administration obtained through deliberate suppression of key heirs and false affidavits, reinforcing that fraud vitiates every proceeding in testamentary jurisdiction. This ruling establishes a critical precedent for challenging grants based on material misrepresentation, particularly where legal heirs are excluded without notice or disclosure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Class-II legal heirs (nephews) of the deceased, challenged the grant of Letters of Administration issued to the respondent, Kamladevi Bahadursingh Thapa, who was not a blood relative but had served as the deceased’s domestic helper since 2014. The respondent claimed entitlement under a 2011 Will that bequeathed the entire estate to her, excluding all Class-I and Class-II heirs. The deceased died on 9 April 2014, and his only daughter, mentioned in the Will, died in 2017.
Procedural History
- 2024: Respondent filed affidavits asserting the deceased had no son and his wife had predeceased him.
- December 2024: The Department issued two orders requiring citation and affidavit submission, which the respondent complied with while omitting the existence of the daughter.
- October 2025: Letters of Administration were granted based on these incomplete disclosures.
- March 2026: Petitioners filed this Misc. Petition before the Bombay High Court, alleging fraud and suppression.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought: (a) setting aside the Letters of Administration; (b) injunction against the respondent from acting on the grant; and (c) direction to serve notice on all legal heirs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a grant of Letters of Administration can stand when it is obtained by suppressing the existence of a known heir - specifically, a daughter referenced in the Will - and by falsely asserting that no Class-I heirs exist, thereby depriving them of their statutory right to notice and contest.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioners relied on Smt. Sushila Devi v. Smt. Kamla Devi and Rajendra Singh v. Smt. Savitri Devi to argue that suppression of material facts, especially the existence of heirs, renders a grant voidable ab initio. They emphasized that the Will itself referenced the daughter, making the respondent’s affidavit claim of no children a deliberate falsehood. The failure to serve the deceased’s brother, the sole surviving Class-I heir, violated Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which mandates notice to all known heirs.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear before the Court and filed no written submissions. The Court noted her absence as a factor indicating lack of bona fides, particularly given the gravity of the allegations.
The Court's Analysis
The Court found that the respondent’s affidavits contained a material misrepresentation: while the Will explicitly referred to the deceased’s daughter, the respondent swore she had no children. This contradiction was not an oversight but a calculated omission to secure the grant. The Court held that fraud vitiates all proceedings in testamentary jurisdiction, citing In re: Estate of Keshav Rao and S. R. Batliboi v. Smt. Sushila Devi.
"The very foundation of testamentary jurisdiction is truth. When a petitioner suppresses the existence of a child referenced in the Will and falsely declares no Class-I heirs exist, the grant is not merely irregular - it is fraudulent and voidable at the instance of any aggrieved heir."
The Court further noted that substituted service was effected on false assertions, violating Section 277 of the Indian Succession Act. The failure to serve the deceased’s brother - a Class-I heir under Section 21 - was a fatal procedural flaw. The Court also observed the respondent’s subsequent attempt to forcibly enter the property, which demonstrated bad faith beyond mere procedural irregularity.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that the grant of Letters of Administration was procured by fraud and suppression of material facts, rendering it voidable. The grant was set aside, and an ad-interim injunction was granted restraining the respondent from acting on it.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fraud Nullifies Testamentary Grants
- Practitioners must now scrutinize affidavits in probate matters for contradictions with the Will or known family structure
- Any suppression of heirs - even if they are not direct beneficiaries - can be grounds to set aside a grant
- Courts will treat fraudulent affidavits as jurisdictional defects, not mere procedural lapses
Notice to All Known Heirs Is Mandatory
- Section 276 requires notice to all Class-I and Class-II heirs, regardless of whether they are named in the Will
- Substituted service cannot be justified if the petitioner knowingly conceals the identity or existence of heirs
- Failure to serve a Class-I heir, such as a surviving spouse, child, or parent, renders the grant vulnerable to challenge
Courts Will Not Tolerate Post-Grant Misconduct
- Attempts to forcibly occupy property based on a contested grant will be viewed as evidence of bad faith
- Such conduct strengthens the case for interim injunctions and may trigger criminal proceedings for trespass or criminal intimidation
- Practitioners should consider filing police complaints alongside probate petitions when there is evidence of unlawful possession
