-
by sayum
06 July 2026 2:51 PM
In a landmark decision Bombay High Court held that a second Letters of Administration based on an allegedly forged Will is void ab initio, where a prior Will has already been probated and affirmed up to the Supreme Court. Justice Kamal Khata, sitting in Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, ruled in unequivocal terms that “law does not permit successive grants over the same estate”, setting aside a fraudulent 2022 grant obtained by the Respondent Bilkish Yunus Namakwala, who had suppressed material facts and secured the estate of Lady Jena Duggan, including a ₹150 crore Malabar Hill property.
The Court’s ruling reaffirmed the cardinal principle that “fraud vitiates all solemn judicial acts”, and directed not just the cancellation of the forged Will and subsequent transfer deed, but also imposed exemplary costs of ₹25,00,000, initiated contempt proceedings, and ordered the Prothonotary to lodge a criminal complaint for offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
“Fraud Unravels Everything — Even Finality Cannot Shield a Grant Secured by Deceit”: Court Tears Down 2022 Administration as Abuse of Process
Justice Kamal Khata opened the judgment by stating:
“This case exemplifies a flagrant fraud perpetrated not only upon the rightful beneficiaries but also upon this Hon’ble Court.”
Referring to the forged Will dated 6th April 1993, which the Respondent had used to secure Letters of Administration on 3rd June 2022, the Court held:
“Once a grant of probate or Letters of Administration attains finality, law does not permit a second grant for the same estate, unless the earlier one is revoked. The Respondent not only failed to do so, but also suppressed the existence of the heirs and the prior Will – this is fraud in its purest form.”
The Court placed reliance on A.V. Papayya Sastry v. State of A.P., reiterating: “Even the most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud… Fraud is an extrinsic, collateral act that vitiates all judicial acts.”
“The Will Was Attested by Nani Palkhivala — Why Would the Testatrix Execute a Second, Sloppily Drafted Will Two Days Later?”: Court Rejects 6th April Will as Fabrication
The High Court was particularly critical of the Respondent’s claim that Lady Jena Duggan—a wealthy, legally astute woman—would execute a second Will dated 6th April 1993, barely two days after she executed a formal Will on 4th April 1993, which had been:
Drafted by M/s. Kanga & Co., one of the city’s oldest law firms
Attested by Nani A. Palkhivala, an eminent constitutional expert
Scrutinized over two decades of litigation, culminating in finality via the Supreme Court in 2017
“It is inconceivable that a lady who had access to the finest legal expertise would execute another Will two days later, in vague language, attested by unknown witnesses ‘John’ and ‘Mary’ with no addresses or details.”
The Court found the second Will to be grammatically incorrect, syntactically flawed, and lacking the gravitas or structure of a genuine testamentary document. Clause 6 of the alleged Will stated: “after my death give my balance all immovable and movable properties...”
Justice Khata observed: “Such language is not just ungrammatical but antithetical to the precision expected in a Will, especially one allegedly executed by the same testatrix who had two days earlier signed a professionally drafted document.”
*“There Are No Legal Heirs” — A Deliberate Lie, Made Under Oath, To Obtain Uncontested Grant
The Respondent, in her original Testamentary Petition filed in 2022, had made a striking and demonstrably false statement:
“There are no legal heirs of the deceased children of the Deceased. There are no legal heirs of the deceased sons.”
However, the Petition itself elsewhere acknowledged the existence of grandchildren, including Dr. Feroze Duggan, who had in fact been litigating for decades to establish his inheritance rights.
The Court noted: “This suppression was intentional. By falsely claiming that no heirs existed, the Respondent ensured that no citations were issued, thereby obtaining the Letters of Administration in an uncontested manner.”
This lie, compounded by the failure to disclose long-standing litigation concerning the same property (including suits from 1995, 1996, and the appointment of a Court Receiver in 1998), was labelled as a calculated abuse of judicial process.
“Delay of 29 Years Cannot Be Explained By Sudden Discovery of a Will in a Drawer”: Court Rejects Claim of Innocent Ignorance
The Respondent claimed in her Petition: “Recently, while taking search at home, the Petitioner has found the Will of the Deceased…”
The Court found this assertion inherently improbable, noting that if the Respondent truly believed she had been bequeathed a ₹150 crore property in 1993, there was no reasonable explanation for waiting 29 years to assert that claim.
“It is difficult to believe that an individual entitled to a valuable property in Mumbai would wait nearly three decades to have it transferred in her name.”
Furthermore, the Respondent herself had acknowledged her knowledge of the Court Receiver’s possession of the Lawnside property, including through a 2024 MoU, making her claims of ignorance utterly untenable.
“Not Just Forgery, But a Pre-Meditated Scheme to Usurp Property”: Court Orders Criminal Prosecution Under BNS
Justice Khata minced no words in stating: “Having heard the arguments, I am convinced that an inquiry should be conducted into the offences committed by the Respondent in relation to the forged Will dated 6th April 1993…”
Relying on the precedent in Hila Homi Dadi v. Hoshang Jehangir Khan, the Court directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master to lodge a complaint under Sections 233, 236, 237, 336, 340 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court held: “The Respondent’s statements were not mere errors—they were deliberate falsehoods designed to defraud both the rightful heirs and the Court itself.”
“Litigative Strategy to Profit from Delay Must Be Penalised”: ₹25 Lakh Exemplary Costs Imposed to Send a Message
In perhaps the most forceful part of the ruling, the Court observed: “Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline.”
Quoting from Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar, the Court held:
“Exemplary costs are inevitable and even necessary in order to ensure that there is no premium on falsehood and delay… The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts due to unscrupulous litigation.”
Accordingly, the Court ordered: “The Respondent is directed to pay to the Petitioners a sum of ₹25,00,000 within two weeks.”
“Respondent Scuttled Hearings, Disobeyed Court Orders, and Breached Judicial Dignity”: Contempt Proceedings to Follow
Justice Khata was categorical in recording the Respondent’s continued non-compliance with judicial orders, including failure to deposit the original Letters of Administration as directed on 10th February 2025, and multiple adjournments that were later disregarded even after costs were imposed.
“The conduct of the Respondent, from forum shopping to procedural abuse, must be met with institutional deterrence. Suo motu contempt is hereby initiated.”
The Court passed a detailed order: “The Petition is allowed. The Letters of Administration dated 3rd June 2022 and Deed of Transfer dated 17th June 2022 are cancelled. The Registrar of Sub-Assurances is directed to cancel the registration of the Transfer Deed. The Respondent shall pay ₹25,00,000 as exemplary costs. Contempt proceedings shall be initiated. The Prothonotary shall file a criminal complaint under relevant provisions of BNS and BNSS. Compliance to be reported every three months.”
Date of Decision: 22 September 2025
