1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION MISC. PETITION NO. 21 OF 1996 In the matter of the estate of the late Gurmeet Singh Malhotra, etc. Mrs. Dilber Gurmeet Malhotra. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Administrator General of the State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Raj Patel a/w. Ms. M.S. Wadia i/b. M/s. Hariani and Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. H.T. Attari i/b. Hooseini Doctor & Co. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20TH OCTOBER 2008. P.C. :- When this Petition was pending for some time in this Court and parties are directed to explore possibility of amicable settlement, now, it is reported to me as under : 2 2. The Petitioner married Gurmeet Singh Malhotra (deceased) and the said marriage was solemnised on 9th June 1989 under Special Marriage Act. The deceased expired on 9th March 1991. The deceased had married earlier and the Second Respondent is a daughter from the previous marriage. It is agreed by both sides that upon the deceased marrying subsequently under the Special Marriage Act, the Will and Testament dated 18th April 1978 stand revoked and the estate will have to be administered in accordance with the Succession Act. It is further agreed between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 that apart from them there are no other heirs and legal representative of the deceased. That is how even the record would indicate inasmuch as the Petition is pending in this Court from 1996. Now, the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have agreed amongst themselves that the bonds, interest warrants and fixed deposits of the deceased shall be exclusively claimed by the Petitioner. In other words, Respondent No.2 gives up her claim as a heir and legal representative of the deceased to these properties/bonds and fixed deposits. Accordingly, the authorities shall release the bonds, interest warrants and fixed deposits in favour of 3 the Petitioner exclusively after the Petitioner produces a authenticated copy of this order. Respondent No.2 will have no objection to the authorities so releasing or appropriating the above in favour of the Petitioner. The Petition is, therefore, disposed of as the Petitioner does not press any of the prayers in the Petition in the light of the agreement between parties. 3. It is also agreed between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 that they will have no claim against each other and all disputes with regard to the estate of the deceased are finally settled between them. 4. The schedule of investments which has been handed in by both sides is taken on record and marked `X' for identification and all authorities to act accordingly. It is also agreed between both sides that barring these investments, there is nothing that belongs to the estate of the deceased. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)