The Bombay High Court has held that an administration suit filed by a biological brother concerning his deceased sister’s estate is not maintainable as he failed to establish a legal interest or share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court observed that under the statutory hierarchy of Section 15(1) of the Act, the heirs of the deceased's husband (Entry 'b') occupy a prior entry to the heirs of the father (Entry 'd'). The Court found that in the present case, the husband’s sister falls in Entry 'b' and thus excludes the Plaintiff, who falls in Entry 'd', from any entitlement to the estate.

The Court also addressed the submission regarding the 207th Report of the Law Commission of India, which recommended modifying Section 15 to give precedence to a Hindu female’s natal heirs over her husband’s heirs. It noted that while such recommendations exist, they have not been implemented by the legislature. The Court held that as Section 15(1) has not been amended to bring about the suggested changes, the Law Commission’s report cannot carry the case of the Plaintiff any further, and the Court must apply the law as it currently stands.

Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla observed, “As per Section 16 of the HSA, the heirs in the earlier entries exclude those in the subsequent entries. In these circumstances, the Deceased's husband's sister, Mrs. Shridevi Ruparel, who falls in entry 'b', excludes the Plaintiff who falls in entry 'd' of Section 15(1). This makes it clear that, by virtue of the provisions Section 15(1), the Plaintiff has no entitlement to the Deceased's property at intestacy. For the aforesaid reasons, if the Deceased had died intestate, the Plaintiff would not have an interest in the estate of the Deceased.…by virtue of the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of the HSA, if the Deceased had died intestate, then the Plaintiff would not have had any interest in the estate of the Deceased”.

Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani appeared for the applicant-original petitioner and Advocate Nirman Sharma appeared for the respondent.

The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking to declare himself the sole surviving relative and heir of his late sister, who died at the age of 81 following a stroke. He challenged a 2023 Will and a 2024 Gift Deed executed by the deceased in favor of deceased’s friend (Defendant no. 1), alleging cognitive impairment and undue influence. The estate included a residential flat at Nepean Sea Road and substantial bank holdings.

Thereafter, the Plaintiff moved an Interim Application seeking the appointment of a Court Receiver and an injunction against the disposal of assets. During the pendency of this application, Defendant No. 1 obtained Probate of the disputed Will on March 7, 2026. The Court subsequently invited submissions on whether the suit remained maintainable in light of the Probate and the statutory rules of succession.

The Court focusing on Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, observed that under Section 15(1), the heirs of the husband (Entry 'b') are preferred over the heirs of the father (Entry 'd'). Since the deceased’s husband’s sister, survived her, she excluded the Plaintiff, the deceased's brother from intestate succession.

The Court rejected the Plaintiff's reliance on Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa (2012) SCC Online Bom 1685, noting that the issue of the constitutional validity of Section 15 had been referred to a Division Bench which did not ultimately declare the provision unconstitutional. Consequently, the Court held that the Plaintiff had no "caveatable interest" or legal share in the estate, rendering his challenge to the executrix's actions unsustainable.

On the submission of the Law Report, the Bench noted, “…it is true that such a recommendation has been given by the Law Commission. However, the said recommendation has not been implemented by the legislature and Section 15(1) has not been amended to bring about the changes suggested by the Law Commission. In these circumstances, the 207th Report of the Law Commission of India cannot carry the case of the Plaintiff any further”.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the Interim Application, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish any entitlement to the estate of the deceased.

Cause Title: Santsaran Gursaran Advani Alias Papan Advani v. Nina H. Bhalla and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:9925)

Appearances:

Applicant: Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, Pranay Kamdar, Pushpvijay Kanoji, Advocates.

Respondent: Nirman Sharma, Khushbu Prabhu, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: