A bitter, multi-generational family feud over inheritance rights to a historic family home in Bandra West has finally reached its end after nearly four decades of litigation. On December 30, 2025, the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench (Justices M.S. Sonak and Advait M. Sethna) dismissed the appeal filed by Myra Philomena Collaco, upholding the 2003 Single Judge order that refused to grant Letters of Administration with her late mother Maria Francisca Coelho’s 1982 Will.
The property in question is a house and plot located in the prestigious Salsette Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., a century-old Roman Catholic enclave in Bandra West known for its preserved colonial-era charm and community-focused bylaws.
How It Started: The Family Wills and Early Tensions
The saga began with Sonny Rita Coelho (the father) and Maria Francisca Coelho (the mother), who married in 1931-32 and had six children: sons George (b. 1933, deceased), Reginald (b. 1935, deceased), Victor (b. 1938, deceased), Neville (b. 1940, deceased), Anthony (deceased), and daughter Myra Philomena Collaco (b. 1946, the appellant).
On August 22, 1971, Sonny executed a Will appointing Maria as life tenant of the property, with the house and plot devolving after her death to sons Victor (ground floor) and Neville (first floor) as tenants-in-common. They were required to pay Rs. 10,000 each to the estate, from which Rs. 5,000 each went to George, Reginald, and Myra, and the remaining Rs. 5,000 to Anthony (conditional on him stopping alcohol consumption).
Sonny died on January 26, 1976. His Will was probated on April 24, 1980, without objections from the children.
On July 7, 1982, Maria executed her own Will, bequeathing all her movable and immovable property (including interests in the Bandra house) to Myra and sons George and Reginald—completely excluding Victor and Neville. Maria passed away on November 24, 1985. In a 1982 affidavit, she claimed ignorance of Sonny’s Will, suggesting it was made in “a fit of temper.”
The Legal Battle Unfolds
In December 1985, Myra filed a suit for administration of Maria’s estate. Victor contested, asserting no valid 1982 Will existed and that the property belonged exclusively to Sonny (purchased from his funds, as Maria was never gainfully employed).
In April 1987, Myra filed Testamentary Petition No. 209 of 1987 for Letters of Administration with Maria’s Will annexed. After Victor’s death in 1993, his widow Lilian Coelho and sons Conrad and Dylan filed a caveat in 1999, converting it into Testamentary Suit No. 33 of 1999.
The suit framed key issues: due execution and attestation, testamentary capacity, forgery, undue influence/coercion/fraud, and entitlement to administration.
Evidence included testimony from the Will’s drafting advocate (PW-1) and Myra’s husband (PW-2), while Lilian testified as the sole defence witness.
The Rollercoaster of Judgments
On March 7, 2003, the Single Judge upheld formal proof of execution, attestation, sound mind, and absence of coercion/fraud/forgery. However, he identified three suspicious circumstances: (a) the Will was cryptic and omitted property details; (b) Myra played a prominent role in its execution; (c) no explanation for excluding Victor and Neville (natural heirs).
Finding these suspicions unexplained by the propounder (Myra), the suit was dismissed, denying Letters of Administration.
Myra appealed. On January 22, 2009, a Division Bench reversed the order and granted the Letters.
Lilian’s family appealed to the Supreme Court, which on January 2, 2025, set aside the 2009 judgment for inadequate reasoning on suspicious circumstances and remanded the case to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration.
Final Resolution: Closure in 2025
On December 30, 2025, the remanded Division Bench reaffirmed the Single Judge’s findings. While formal validity was established, the suspicious circumstances persisted and were not dispelled to the court’s satisfaction. Citing established precedents on the propounder’s burden in testamentary cases, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
The ruling effectively denies probate to Maria’s 1982 Will, leaving inheritance governed by Sonny’s probated 1971 Will or applicable intestate rules.
In its prologue, the Court reflected poignantly: “We are confronted with yet another family saga where the slugfest between the parties… It is in such context that the contesting parties seek to assert their rival claims and legal rights over the suit property.”
This marks the end of a 38-year dispute (from the 1987 petition), highlighting the emotional and legal toll of prolonged family inheritance battles in India.
Also Read: Redevelopment Disputes Can’t Be Thrown Out Without Trial: Bombay High Court
