1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION MISC. PETITION NO.18 OF 2006 IN PETITION NO.421 OF 2005 Hoori Indru Mirpuri ..Petitioner. Vs. Sunita Nariandas Khaiatani and another ..Respondents. .... Mr. M.L. Palan with Mr. C.A. Shukla i/b Mr. B.S. Chandnani for the Petitioner. Mr. Satish Kamat for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 29th August, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Petition has been filed for revocation of a succession certificate granted to the First Respondent on 3rd October, 2005. The Petitioner resides in the U.S. and is one of the daughters of Mohandas Sobhraj Khaiatani who died on 19th July, 1973 at Madras. The original First Respondent Nariandas Metharam Khaiatani obtained a succession certificate from this Court by representing that he was the only heir and legal representative of the deceased and that there are no other heirs. 2 The grievance of the Petitioner is that the citation was not served on her though she is the daughter of the deceased and had a caveatable interest. 2. No reply has been filed to the Petition. Consequently, the averments have gone unchallenged. The original First Respondent died during the pendency of the proceedings and his widow has been brought on the record. The fact that the Petitioner is a daughter of the deceased has not been denied. From Exhibits D and E to the Petition it would appear that an affidavit was filed before the Second Respondent by the widow of the deceased and another daughter – Mohini and Renu for the transfer of a share certificate. 3. Evidently though the Petitioner is the daughter of the deceased, she was not served with the citation. In these circumstances, the grant of the succession certificate would have to be revoked. The Petition is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). *****