Advertisement
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
Private equity has played a significant role in shaping Indi...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Airports play a much bigger role than just enabling travel -...
The Bombay High Court on 8 June 2026 revoked a probate granted in 2009 in respect of a residential flat at Bueno Vista, Windy Hall Lane, Colaba, Mumbai, after finding that the existence of a surviving heir had not been disclosed during the original proceedings. Arnold Samson, a Sweden-based son of the deceased Rosalind Samson who passed away in February 2008, successfully established a prima facie case before Justice N.J. Jamadar that he had been denied an opportunity to contest the original probate petition, prompting the court to restore the matter for a fresh determination.
The Bombay High Court revoked a probate granted over a residential flat in Colaba, Mumbai, and ordered fresh proceedings after ruling that the petitioner, a Sweden-based heir of the deceased, had not been issued a citation before the original grant was made in 2009.
Justice N.J. Jamadar, in a judgement pronounced on 8 June 2026 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 86 of 2010, allowed the petition filed by Arnold Samson, a resident of Malmö, Sweden, seeking revocation of the probate granted on 10 July 2009 in Testamentary Petition No. 917 of 2008. The probate had been granted in favour of Ramesh Baldev Gwalani, named as the sole executor under the purported last Will and Testament of late Rosalind Samson, who passed away on 22 February 2008 while admitted to Saifee Hospital, Mumbai.
The property at the centre of the dispute is Flat No. 6, Second Floor, Bueno Vista, Windy Hall Lane, near Colaba Post Office, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005. At the time of her death, Rosalind Samson held the flat as its owner, having initially been its licence holder. Under the contested Will dated 6 February 2008, the flat and other movable and immovable properties of the deceased had been bequeathed equally to Vimla Rama Rao, described as the deceased's caretaker, and Rahim Jawat Mohammed, whom the deceased had treated as a foster son.
Arnold Samson, claiming to be the biological son and sole heir of the deceased, contended that the probate was obtained without a citation being issued to him, and that the original petition had falsely stated that the deceased had left behind no surviving heir. Samson, who had settled in Sweden in 1970 after earlier residing in Israel, asserted that he became aware of the probate only after approaching the Bueno Vista Cooperative Housing Society in February 2009 to transfer the flat in his favour, whereupon the existence of the Will came to light.
In support of his claim, Samson placed on record a birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai recording Rosalind Samson as his mother and Hari Madanchand Kapur as his father, along with over 40 letters and aerograms addressed to him by the deceased over several decades, and a communication from the United States Office of Personnel Management remitting a lump sum death benefit payment following the deceased's passing. The court found that this body of evidence established a strong prima facie case that Samson was the biological son of the deceased and that a citation ought to have been issued to him before the probate was granted.
The court noted that Vimla Rama Rao, one of the beneficiaries under the Will, had conceded during cross-examination that the petitioner used to visit and stay with the deceased annually since 1979, and that the deceased had relatives outside India admissions which, the court observed, were material to the question of whether the original petition had adequately disclosed the existence of heirs.
Justice Jamadar revoked the probate dated 10 July 2009 and restored Testamentary Petition No. 917 of 2008 to file for fresh determination in accordance with law. An interim injunction granted by the appellate court in Appeal No. 990 of 2010 was directed to continue operating until the disposal of the restored petition. No order as to costs was made.
Source: Indian Kanoon
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
