₹600 Crore Bandra Bungalow Dispute: Bombay HC Cancels Probate

In recent developments that have captured public and legal attention across Mumbai, the Bombay High Court cancelled the probate of a prime Bandra bungalow valued at about ₹600 crore. This case, involving one of the city’s most desirable properties, highlights the complexities of succession laws, property rights, and the importance of transparency in legal claims. For many, this judgement has raised new questions about how probate processes, will disputes, and inheritance law work in India’s top courtrooms.

In this blog, we will explain the background of the case, the key issues at the centre of the dispute, the legal principles involved, and what this ruling means for property owners and legal heirs going forward.

To understand this case, we first need to know what probate means. Probate is a legal process that confirms the validity of a person’s will after their death. When a person dies and leaves a will, courts examine whether the will is genuine and whether it accurately reflects the wishes of the deceased. If the will meets legal standards, a court grants probate, which gives the executor the authority to manage and distribute the property according to the will.

In the Bandra case, the Bombay High Court cancelled a previously granted probate that was issued in 2017 for the Marina Manor bungalow. The court found serious issues with how that probate was obtained, raising concerns over misrepresentation and concealment of important facts.

The property at the centre of this dispute is known as Marina Manor, a large sea‑facing bungalow located in Bandra West, one of Mumbai’s most prestigious neighbourhoods. The property was originally part of a larger estate left by Martha Eugenie Pereira in a will dated 1972, which named her niece, Marie Joseph Fernandes, as the trustee and executrix. The will stated that the land was to be used for charitable purposes linked to education in memory of Martha’s husband.

After Marie Fernandes died in 2015, another will dated November 8, 2014 came into the spotlight. This new will, allegedly drafted when she was very old and in poor health, transferred ownership of the property to another person, Marina Manuel Fernandes. Marina obtained probate for this will in 2017. However, questions about its authenticity soon arose.(

In December 2025, the Bombay High Court examined the 2017 probate and found that it had been obtained through misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. Key legal heirs, including a first cousin and rightful heir, were not informed or included in the probate application. This omission of crucial information led the court to conclude that the earlier probate lacked transparency and failed basic legal standards.

Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh, who delivered the judgement, emphasised that even unintentional ignorance of heirs does not excuse incomplete disclosure of critical information to the court. As a result, the court ordered that the original probate be returned and officially revoked, meaning the earlier legal foundation for Marina’s claim to the property is now invalid.

This case brings several important principles of inheritance law and probate law into focus. First, courts require full disclosure of all legal heirs and material facts when granting probate. Omitting key information, whether deliberate or accidental, can jeopardise the estate’s legal handling. This case highlights why courts take strict positions on transparency.

Second, the authenticity of wills — especially those made shortly before a person’s death — must be carefully examined. In this dispute, the court also considered medical evidence regarding the late owner’s physical and mental condition at the time the will was “signed.” Such evidence plays a vital role in assessing whether a will is genuine or possibly forged.

The cancellation of the probate has significant implications for the rightful heirs and the property itself. Without a valid probate, the authority to distribute and manage the estate reverts to the legal heirs recognised under succession law. This means multiple family members could now stake legitimate claims to the property based on inheritance rules.

This ruling also serves as a reminder that wealthy or historic properties — like the Bandra bungalow — can fall under intense judicial scrutiny when disputes arise. When large sums are involved, courts are especially careful to ensure that wills are authentic, that heirs are properly notified, and that probate proceedings meet all legal standards.

Beyond cancelling the probate, related legal actions are ongoing. Legal activists and parties involved in the case have filed complaints alleging forgery, cheating, and falsification of documents connected to the contested will. One police report indicates that a now‑issued arrest warrant for a doctor was issued due to alleged involvement in providing false medical certification to support the contested will. This shows how probate disputes can expand into criminal matters when fraud is suspected.

The criminal side of the case underscores the importance of credible medical and signature verification in property disputes, especially when wills are executed at times when testators are elderly or medically vulnerable. Investigations and legal arguments continue as part of this high‑profile saga.

The Bombay High Court’s decision has drawn attention from legal scholars, property owners, and those interested in estate disputes across India. Many see the ruling as a strong signal that courts will not tolerate concealment of important facts or mishandling of probate proceedings, especially with high‑value real estate involved.

At the same time, the case highlights how complex estate matters can become when multiple wills, relatives, and property intentions — such as charitable uses — intersect. Legal observers believe this judgement will serve as a reference point in similar future disputes about valuable property and the application of succession laws and probate procedures in Indian courts

The Bombay High Court cancelled the probate granted for the ₹600 crore Bandra bungalow, concluding it was obtained with misrepresentation and by concealing key legal heirs. The property, known as Marina Manor, had long been disputed due to conflicting wills and questions about the testator’s capacity when signing the 2014 document. The court’s order emphasises transparency in probate law and the necessity of full disclosure. Ongoing legal and criminal cases tied to forgery and fraud continue to shape this high‑profile estate dispute.