The Bombay High Court has clarified that the absence of consent from certain legal heirs does not automatically disqualify a surviving spouse from obtaining Letters of Administration, provided sufficient security is tendered to safeguard the interests of dissenting heirs. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice in succession matters, particularly where the applicant is the deceased’s widow and no fraud or collusion is alleged.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bimla Rajmani Shukla, is the widow of the deceased, Rajmani Shukla alias Rajmani Bishwanath Shukla. She filed Testamentary Petition No. 1927 of 2025 seeking Letters of Administration over the deceased’s estate, which includes immovable and movable properties. Six legal heirs exist, including two children - Ashutosh Rajmani Shukla (son) and Seema Mahesh Singh (married daughter) - who refused to consent to the grant.
Procedural History
- The petition was filed under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in the Bombay High Court’s Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction.
- The Registrar issued a requisition dated 08.01.2026, citing lack of consent from the two non-cooperating heirs as an impediment.
- The petitioner filed Interim Application (L) No. 2259 of 2026 seeking dispensation of the requirement for surety from the non-consenting heirs.
- The Court heard arguments on 22.01.2026 and disposed of both the interim application and the main petition in a single order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) dispensation of the requirement for justifying surety from the two non-consenting heirs; and (2) grant of Letters of Administration with full effect throughout Maharashtra.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 mandates the consent of all legal heirs as a precondition for granting Letters of Administration to a surviving spouse, or whether the Court may dispense with such consent upon adequate security being furnished.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Bipin Joshi argued that Section 218 permits the Court to grant Letters of Administration to the widow even without the consent of all heirs, provided she demonstrates her entitlement and offers sufficient security. He relied on In re: Keshav Rao v. Keshav Rao and Smt. Lata v. Smt. Savitri, where courts held that the purpose of surety is to secure the estate, not to enforce unanimity among heirs. The petitioner submitted an undertaking to indemnify the estate against any future claims by the non-consenting heirs.
For the Respondent
No opposing party appeared. The Court noted that the Registrar’s objection was purely procedural and based on standard office practice, not on any substantive legal bar or allegation of impropriety.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 218, which states that Letters of Administration may be granted to "the widow" if no will exists, and emphasized that the provision does not condition such grant on unanimous consent. The Court observed that the requirement of surety is a protective mechanism, not a gatekeeping tool.
"The object of requiring surety is to ensure that the estate is not dissipated or misappropriated, not to compel unanimity among heirs who may be estranged, uncooperative, or geographically inaccessible."
The Court distinguished between consent and security: while consent may facilitate smoother administration, it is not a statutory prerequisite. The petitioner’s undertaking, coupled with the already-filed administration bond and consents from four other heirs, provided adequate assurance. The Court further noted that denying the grant on technical grounds would prejudice the widow’s legitimate right to administer the estate, especially where no dispute over entitlement or ownership was raised.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that consent of all legal heirs is not mandatory for the grant of Letters of Administration to a surviving spouse under Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and that adequate security through undertaking and bond suffices to dispense with the surety requirement of non-consenting heirs. The petition was allowed and the grant directed to be issued within two weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Is Not a Legal Barrier
- Practitioners may now file for Letters of Administration without waiting for reluctant heirs to sign affidavits, provided the applicant is the widow or next of kin with clear entitlement.
- Office objections based solely on lack of consent from one or two heirs must be challenged on the basis of Section 218 and judicial precedents.
Security Trumps Unanimity
- An undertaking to indemnify the estate, coupled with a properly executed administration bond, satisfies the Court’s requirement for protection.
- Where four of six heirs consent and the applicant is the spouse, courts are likely to view the risk of misappropriation as minimal.
Procedural Flexibility in Succession Matters
- Courts will prioritize substantive justice over rigid compliance with clerical norms.
- Legal heirs who refuse to cooperate cannot unilaterally block estate administration; the burden shifts to them to prove actual harm or fraud, not mere non-cooperation.
