September 27, 2021 1:03:51 am
THE BOMBAY High Court recently appointed an interim receiver to take symbolic possession of various properties in Mumbai registered in the name of a deceased, who died intestate (not having made a will), after the court was informed that the mother has an equal right in the property of her son along with the wife and children of the man.
The court was informed that the deceased’s wife and children had already taken control of properties worth Rs 1.85 crore and failed to appear before the HC.
A single-judge bench of Justice Gautam S Patel on September 21 passed the order while hearing an interim application in the testamentary petition of one Premlatha Amin stating that her son Minil Kumar Amin had died intestate at Udupi in Karnataka in April.
According to the plea, the deceased was working as a brand manager of a company in Kuwait since 1990 and had bought substantial properties in Mumbai and other locations. Some of the properties are registered under his name while and some others were held jointly. Her son also had significant investments in shares and securities, she said. The plea further claimed that the deceased was married and had a son, who was studying in the US, however, there were ongoing disputes between the couple. Due to health issues, the petitioner’s son had retired from his job and returned to India in October last year.
The petitioner stated that after her son returned, her daughter-in-law did not allow her to meet with him. In April, she heard about her son’s health and took the help of her daughter to go to Udupi and meet him, when Minil’s wife informed his brother about his death.
The mother then wrote to all the banks and housing societies where her son held movable or immovable properties, informing them about his death and urging them not to transfer any property in the name of his wife, referring to the pending plea in HC.
However, one of the banks had allowed the deceased’s wife to transfer Rs 1.85 crore to herself, the petitioner alleged. The mother claimed that she has one-third share, right, title and interest in his estates along with her daughter-in-law and grandson and they are not entitled to deal with the estate by excluding the petitioner.
After hearing submissions, the judge noted that though the wife and son of the deceased man had been informed about the case, they did not remain present during the virtual hearing and said, “..I believe it will be necessary to take certain protective steps regarding the estate to ensure that it is preserved and, at the same time, to ensure that any case the respondents may want to put forward is not prejudiced. But the one thing that is unacceptable is for the respondents to defeat the petitioner’s claim by remaining absent.”
The bench granted one more opportunity to the wife and the son to appear during the next videoconference hearing and as an ad-interim measure, appointed a receiver to take ‘symbolic possession’ of the immovable and movable properties of the deceased in Mumbai and posted hearing to October 20.
The HC also directed the man’s mother to issue an advertisement in English and regional newspapers to ensure that the wife and children were sufficiently informed about the case.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines
- The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.