HC strikes down bid to usurp ₹150-cr Malabar Hill bungalow

Court revokes letters of administration granted in favour of Mumbai Central resident, imposes ₹25 lakh fine on her

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday struck down an attempt to usurp a ₹150-crore bungalow in Malabar Hill, built by the legendary eye specialist Sir Jamshedji Duggan. A single judge bench of justice Kamal Khata revoked the letters of administration granted by the high court on June 3, 2022 in favour of a 67-year-old Mumbai Central resident, Bilkish Yunus Namakwala.

The ₹150-crore bungalow in Malabar Hill was built by the legendary eye specialist, Sir Jamshedji Duggan (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT Photo)

Namakwala had claimed that the bungalow was gifted to her by Dr Duggan’s wife, Lady Jena Duggan, via a purported will dated April 6, 1993, after the latter failed to repay a loan of ₹27 lakh taken from her in 1980. Within a fortnight of the court granting letters of administration in Namakwala’s favour in 2022, she had transferred the bungalow to her name.

“This case exemplifies a flagrant fraud perpetrated not only upon the rightful beneficiaries but also upon this court,” justice Khata said.

Namakwala had fraudulently secured letters of administration by deliberately making false averments in her testamentary petition in 2022 and ensuring that no notice was served on any interested party, the court ruled.

“By such conduct, the respondent unlawfully usurped an immovable property valued at ₹150 crore situated at Malabar Hill,” the court said, imposing a fine of ₹25 lakh on the 67-year-old Mumbai Central resident.

The development came close on the heels of the court ordering a probe after a middle-aged Parsi man claimed that he was “like a son” to Hilla Dadysett, the last member of one of the city’s most prominent Parsi families, and sought her share in a Kemp’s Corner bungalow worth ₹250 crore, which Dadysett had bequeathed to charity.

HT had, in its report on the probe ordered by the court, spoken to several people who admitted that there had been many instances in the past of third parties trying to usurp the properties of deceased childless Parsis.

Bombay Parsi Panchayet (BPP) trustee Viraf Mehta had said, “It’s hard to put a number on how many such cases there are, but it’s definitely something that everybody is wary of and we are taking appropriate steps to ensure we safeguard the properties as much as we can.”

Fabricated will

The single judge bench of justice Khata passed the order on a petition filed by Shrieen Dinshaw Mistry, Shapoor Dinshaw Toorkey and Dinshaw Maneck Mistry, executors of the will of Dr Feroze Duggan, grandson of the legendary eye specialist, dated December 30, 1994. The petitioners had sought revocation and annulment of the letters of administration and cancellation of subsequent transfer of the bungalow to Namakwala.

As per Lady Duggan’s will dated April 4, 1993, she had bequeathed all her movable and immovable properties – including ₹1 crore in investments and bank balances and the Lawnside Bungalow at Harkness Road in Malabar Hill – to her grandson Dr Feroze Duggan, son of her son Homi from his first wife. Lady Duggan had excluded her granddaughter Ferina from inheritance as she apprehended that Ferina would marry a Russian, which she did later.

After a round of litigation between family members, Dr Feroze Duggan obtained letters of administration from the high court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in January 2017.

Meanwhile, Jean, widow of Sir Jamshedji Duggan’s second son, Nusly Duggan, filed a suit regarding the bungalow, following which a court receiver was appointed over the property, except for a small portion occupied by Jean herself. After Jean’s death in November 2020, that portion too went under the custody of the court receiver.

In 2022, Namakwala approached the high court seeking letters of administration with respect to Lady Jena’s purported will dated April 6, 1993. Lady Jena had taken ₹27 lakh on loan from her in 1980 for a period of 10 years by mortgaging the Malabar Hill bungalow and as per the mortgage deed, she was to become full owner of the property in case of non-repayment of the loan within the stipulated period, Namakwala claimed.

Since Lady Jena was unable to repay the loan, she bequeathed the sprawling bungalow to Namakwala via her will dated April 6, 1993, the Mumbai Central resident claimed. She also claimed that she had approached Dr Feroze Duggan for repayment of the loan, but he had refused the same.

The executors of Dr Feroze’s will learned about the transfer of the bungalow’s ownership when the mutation entries were changed, they said in their petition. Upon inquiry, they found out that the mutation was based on letters of administration granted by the court. Accordingly, they obtained all documents and approached the court, claiming that the will dated April 6, 1993 was fabricated and the letters of administration were obtained by misleading the court.

‘Inconceivable narrative’

On Monday, the single judge bench of justice Khata held that the letters of administration obtained by Namakwala were a nullity as nothing in law provided for two separate letters of administration by the same person for the same property. Namakwala could not have obtained the second letters of administration without getting the earlier ones, issued in favour of Dr Feroze Duggan, struck down, the court said.

As regards the claim of loan mortgage, the court said the “narrative” was inconceivable and unpalatable as the mortgage deed was neither registered nor reflected in property records. Besides, it was inconceivable that Lady Jena’s solicitors were unaware of, or disregarded, a sizable debt of ₹27 lakh, an enormous liability in those days, the court said.

The court, accordingly, revoked the letters of administration granted in favour of Namakwala and ordered the sub-registrar of assurances (city-I) to cancel the registration of deed of transfer dated June 17, 2022, by which the Malabar Hill bungalow was transferred to Namakwala’s name.

The court issued a show cause notice, asking Namakwala to explain why action should not be taken against her for breach of the high court order dated February 10, 2025, by which she was ordered to surrender the letters of administration obtained by her with the court registry. The court also ordered the registry to initiate criminal proceedings against her for alleged use of false declarations and making false statements before the court.