JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J.:---The petitioners are legal heirs of Mr. Custodio Nocholas Fernandes (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). The deceased died at Karad on or about 16th December, 1989. Smt. Olive Fernandes, wife of the deceased died on 29th September, 1989. The petitioners are children of the deceased. The deceased was an Employee of the Metal Box Co., of India Ltd., and was entitled to receive gratuity and other dues form his employers. The petitioners seek issue of heirship certificate from this Court under Clause 3 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in form prescribed in Appendix 'B' thereto.

2. The petitioners had originally made an application for the same relief to the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay by filing Miscellaneous Petition No. 34 of 1991.

3. By an Order dated 2nd February, 1991, Shri V.D. Deshmukh, the Additional Principal Judge of Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, held that the petition was not maintainable in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay as it could be filed only before "The District Judge" and the expression "District Judge" as used in the applicable provisions of law meant a Judge of 'Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction'. The learned Judge took the view that the Bombay City Civil Court was not a Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction and the Bombay City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The learned Judge carefully analysed the provisions of law contained in Bombay City Civil Court Act 1948 and held in substance that the High Court alone had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court.

4. By an Order dated 27th September, 1991, I.G. Shah, J., directed issued of proclamation under Rule 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in the form prescribed in Appendix "A" to the said Regulation inviting objections from persons concerned within one month from the date of the said proclamation. The Proclamation was duly published. No objections were received. By my Order dated 20th August, 1992, I made the petition absolute in terms of prayer (A) of the petition.

5. After the petition was made absolute, the Assistant Prothonotary Senior Master Shri Bapat saw me in Chamber and invited my attention to the standard commentary of Paruck's. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (7th Edition) at page 613 reading inter alia as under :

"Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827 is not repeated. Certificates of heirship are still being granted by the courts in the districts in the State of Bombay and such a certificate is a prima facie evidence that the holder of it is the rightful heir of the deceased. The Regulation does not apply to High Court."

Thus a doubt was created in the mind of the Court as to whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue heirship certificate. It was considered necessary to examine as to whether Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827 continues to be in force. The Court was also given to understand that no applications are being received by the High Court for issue of heirship certificate for all this Court these years and this case appear to be perhaps first of its kind. It became necessary for this Court to examine the issue as to whether the Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827 continues to be in force and whether the High Court has jurisdiction to issue heirship certificate under the said regulation. Since the matter required research into the legislative history of this old provision and detailed study of the subject, including interpretation of the expression "Zilla Court" used in the said regulation, I thought it proper to appoint an advocate of this Court as an Amicus Curie to assist this Court.

6. The Court appointed Shri Milind Sathe, Advocate as Amicus Curie to assist the Court. The Court explained the abovereferred questions to the learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Clive D'souza and requested him to study the points involved and assist the Court. I passed an Order dat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document