2012(2) AllMR 765
High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
S.S. SHINDE
Shobhabai w/o Prakash Telure & Another
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Others
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2011
Decided On : 04-10-2011
Heirship Certificate - Dispute over Legal Heirs - Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 - Summary: The court considered the dispute over legal heirs of the deceased and the issuance of an heirship certificate. The appellate court found that neither party had provided sufficient evidence to conclusively prove their claim, and directed them to approach the competent civil court to adjudicate their rights and interests. The court also protected the appointment of one of the revision applicants for four months.
Fact of the Case:
The revision applicants sought an heirship certificate claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased Prakash Shahadu Telure. The lower court granted the certificate, but the appellate court set aside the order, finding insufficient evidence to establish the claim of either party. The court directed the parties to approach the competent civil court to determine their status, rights, and interests. The court also protected the appointment of one of the revision applicants for four months.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that neither party had provided sufficient evidence to conclusively prove their claim, and directed them to approach the competent civil court to adjudicate their rights and interests. The court also protected the appointment of one of the revision applicants for four months.
Issues: Dispute over legal heirs and issuance of heirship certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of sufficient evidence to conclusively prove the claim of either party, the matter should be adjudicated by the competent civil court. The court also protected the appointment of one of the revision applicants for four months.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Application was dismissed, and the appointment of one of the revision applicants was protected for four months. The court directed the parties to approach the competent civil court to determine their status, rights, and interests.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. This Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 04-03-2011 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2007 passed by the District Judge-5 Aurangabad. The revision applicants herein filed M.A.R.J.I. No. 188 of 2006 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kannad. The facts stated in the M.A.R.J.I. No.188 of 2006 are reproduced herein below for ready reference.
"1. That, the Prakash s/o Shahadu Telure (hereinafter referred the deceased) died on dt.23-10-2005 at village Kannad, Tq.Kannad Dist. Aurangabad.
2. That the ordinary and permanent residence of deceased at the time of death was at Bhimnagar, Kannad Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad.
3. That the deceased had left the following members of the family :
4. That, the petitioners No. 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased, besides them, there is no other successors legal representatives to the deceased. As such the petitioners are entitled for heirship certificate as prayed. The dseceased was governed by the Hindu Law.
5. That the deceased has left no will, no application has been made for grant of letters of administration of the deceased.
6. That, there is no impediment U/sec. 370 or other provisions of the Indian Succession Act and any other enactment to grant of the certificate or to the validity thereof when granted.
7. That, the deceased was in service in the Revenue Office, Kannad under Deputy Collector, Sillod and working as a Talathi. He was died on the duty on dt. 23.10.2005. The petitioner NO. 1 would have been chances to get service on compassionate basis from the concerned department and to get official all benefits.
8. That, the petitioners when approached to the concerned Authority of department and requested to them to give benefits of compassionate basis, that time the concerned Authority has directed to the petitioner to obtain the legal heirship certificate from court for the above purpose.
9. That, the legal heirship certificate may kindly be issued in the name of the above petitioners."
3. The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kannad passed the following order.
"Petitioner moved this application for heirship certificate.
A notice was published in local daily newspaper 'Tarun Bharat' calling anybody to raise objection if any within one month of the date of publication of the notice. In response of publication of said notice objector Mandanbai Prakash Telure and other appeared and filed objection at Exh. 14. Thus, this position is become contentious.
Learned advocate S.K. Shejwal argued that the objector appeared beyond the period mentioned in the notice and on this point he submitted for discarding the objection. However, I found no substance in such argument, because though the objector appeared beyond the period mentioned in the notice, yet in the interest of justice an opportunity must be given to objector to contest the application.
Since the petition is become contentious it needs to be sent to Hon'ble Civil Judge (S.D.) Aurangabad. Hence in view of Chapter XIV para 304 & 305 of Civil Manual, the petition be transferred to Hon'ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad."
4. On 23-03-2007 the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the application filed by the revision applicants and issued certificate.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 23-03-2007 respondent No. 2 herein Mandanbai filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2007 before the Court of the District Judge-5 Aurangabad.
The District Judge5, Aurangabad allowed the appeal filed by Mandanbai and quashed and set aside the order dated 23-03-2007 holding that there is no satisfactory evidence about the ceremonies of marriages and there is no evidence to show whose marriage took place first.
6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by
M.L. Sethi V Shri. R.P. Kapoor AIR 1972 SC 2379
DLF Housing & Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. v Saroopsing & ors. AIR 1971 SC 2324
Harishankar & ors. v Rao Giridhari Lal Chowdhary AIR 1963 SC 698
Faijulbee Hajeel & ors. v Yadali Amir Shaikh Ansari 1984 (2) Bom.CR 253
Sanjay Kumar Pandey & ors. v Gulabhar Sheikh & ors. AIR 2004 SC 3354 : [2004(5) ALL MR (SC) 542]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.