Big Relief for Widows in Maharashtra: Court Fees Slashed - Reduction in maximum court fees from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-

 2. In view of the requisition raised by the Testamentary Registrar, Ms. Chavan, Learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the State Government has issued a notification dated 9th August, 2024, which reads thus:

“Maharashtra Court Fees Act.

No. Mudrank-2023/C.R.641/M-1(Policy).- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 46 of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act (XXXVI of 1959), the Government of Maharashtra, hereby reduces the maximum limit of fees from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-, payable by widows on probate of a will or letters of administration with or without will annexed, specified in Article 10 of the First Schedule appended to the said Act, to be filed in any Civil Court in respect of obtaining Heirship Certificate from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.”

3. In light of this, it is her submission that it should apply to all

widows in cases for application for probate, letters of administration, succession certificate and legal heirship certificate irrespectively. With this clarification, nothing further remains.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 108 OF 2025

Subhadra Anant Kesarkar ...Petitioner

Rukmini Vithoba Khedekar ...Deceased

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

DATE : 09 th  APRIL, 2025

Print Page

Whether beneficiary of will can seek letters of administration if executor of will refuses to act?

The Supreme Court in Vatsala Srinivasan Vs. Shyamala Raghunathan, MANU/SC/0498/2016 : (2016) 13 SCC 253 has held that, probate and letters of administration proceedings are similar in nature. It has further been held that the essence of both the proceedings is the same and they relate to ascertainment of genuineness and authenticity of the Will. It was also held, following a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Jadeja Pravinsinhji Anandsinhji Vs. Jadeja Mangalsinhji Shivsinhji and others, MANU/GJ/0045/1963, that if the executor fails in his duty, any of those whom he represents are entitled to intervene and carry on the proceedings with a "formal modification" that the prayer be read for letters of administration with the Will annexed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Test. CAS. 11/2015

Decided On: 18.07.2018

Preethi Swaminathan Vs.  Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manmohan, J.

Print Page

Whether right to file an application for grant of probate or letters of administration is a continuing right?

 In the case of Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani Vs. Sajni Prem Lalwani AIR 1983 Bombay 268 this Court through the judgment of Justice Lentin, as he then was, held that a petition of probate can be filed when the need arises as it only seeks recognition from the Court to perform a duty-the duty of an executor. The right to file an application for grant of probate or letters of administration is a continuing right which can be exercised at any time after the death of the testator. There is no specific provision in the Limitation Act for filing a petition for probate. The petition for probate shows no lis between the parties and hence is not required to be filed as a suit. Consequently, a testamentary petition could not be covered by the Limitation Act. Indeed through the years petitions have been filed in this Court for probate many years after the death of the deceased and as and when the need for the grant of a probate arises.

125. The Supreme Court whilst considering this issue in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur Vs. Kirandeep Kaur MANU/SC/7451/2008 : (2008) 8 SCC 463 set out the summarised decision in Vasudev Sadarangani's case in para 15 of the judgment. The fact that the application for permission to perform the legal duty created by will by filing a probate or letters of administration as a continuous right has been upheld. Once that is done, no question of any bar of limitation would arise. Hence it has been held that there is advisedly no prescribed period of limitation for a grant of probate, or letters of administration. The right to apply is whenever it is necessary which may not be within 3 years from the date of the death of the deceased. However the assumption that under Article 137 the right to apply necessarily accrues on the death of the deceased being unwarranted is observed to be incorrect, as in some cases that would not be so if, as in this case, where it is shown that there was no need to apply for probate at the time of the death of the deceased. If parties were at dispute since that time and if applying for probate or letters of administration was shown to be necessitated by intrinsic evidence, unlike in this case, the assumption may be warranted. This is so held only upon accepting the analogy in the case of Kerala SEB Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma MANU/SC/0323/1976 : (1976) 4 SCC 634 which held that Article 137 would apply as much to a Probate Petition as to all other applications because in the Limitation Act, 1963, unlike the Limitation Act 1908 the applications under Article 137 included applications under all Acts and not only applications under the CPC. Hence a Probate Petition is held otherwise to fall under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act 1963. But it being a continuous right and being required to be filed only if the situation so entailed, the period of limitation would begin to run only from when the situation warranted a petition.

126. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that Article 137 would apply from the date of the death of the deceased. The contention is absurd. When the Supreme Court accepts, as held by this Court, that the right to sue for probate etc., is a continuous right and can accrue whenever it becomes necessary, the cause of action cannot accrue on the date of the death of the deceased, even if the assumption is not unwarranted. The right to sue would accrue when the need is felt whatever be the assumption as the conclusions in Vasudev Sadarangani's (supra) case which has been upheld as the correct position in law is consistent with all the conclusions except 'b'. Hence the argument that Article 137 would apply from the date of the death of the deceased in all cases cannot be accepted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Testamentary Suit No. 7 of 2007 in Testamentary Petition No. 964 of 2006

Decided On: 07.03.2013

Appellants: Manilal Sunderji Doshi
Vs.
Respondent: Kamal Manilal Doshi & Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:R.S. Dalvi, J.

Print Page

Whether period of limitation is prescribed for filing application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate?

Similarly reference was made to a decision of the Bombay High Court's case in Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v Sajni Prem Lalwani (AIR 1983 Bom.268). Para 16 reads as follows:

"16. Rejecting Mr. Dalapatrai's contention, I summarise my conclusions thus:--

(a) under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly prescribed within which an application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate must be made;

(b) the assumption that under Article 137 the right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the deceased, is unwarranted;

(c) such an application is for the Court's permission to perform a legal duty created by a Will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed;

(d) the right to apply would accrue when it becomes necessary to apply which may not necessarily be within 3 years form the date of he deceased's death.

(e) delay beyond 3 years after the deceased's death would arouse suspicion and greater the delay, greater would be the suspicion;

(f) such delay must be explained, but cannot be equated with the absolute bar of limitation; and

(g) once execution and attestation are proved, suspicion of delay no longer operates".

Supreme Court of India

Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur vs Kirandeep Kaur & Ors on 3 April, 2008

Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P.Sathasivam

           CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil)  2464 of 2008

Citation:AIR 2008 SC 2058,( 2008 ) 8 SCC 463 

Print Page

When probate proceeding can be converted in to petition of grant of letters of administration?

In my view, since in this case, both the executors have refused to act as executors, petitioner who is claiming to be a sole beneficiary under the Will in question is entitled to seek conversion of petition for probate into petition for letters of administration with Will annexed and to proceed with the petition for Letters of Administration. In my view, application thus made by the petitioner for seeking permission to convert the probate petition into the petition for Letters of Administration is justified and deserved to be granted.

Bombay High Court

Shirin Baman Faramarzi Of Bombay vs  Zubin Boman Faramarzi  on 23 September, 2013

Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
Citation;AIR 2015 (NOC)51 Bom

Print Page