The legal principle established is that children from a void marriage are entitled to inherit the property of their parents under Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and such entitlement is upheld by relevant Supreme Court judgments.

1. By this petition, petitioners seek revocation of the heirship certificate granted by this Court by an order dated 12th March, 2010 to the respondent in Petition No. 91 of 2009 under section 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in respect of the deceased Mr. Bhimrao Anand Jadhav. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:—

2. Respondent to this petition who is admittedly son of the said deceased Mr. Bhimrao Anand Jadhav had filed the said Misc. Petition No. 91 of 2009 for issuance of legal heirship certificate in this Court. It was stated in the said petition that the said deceased left behind the petitioner the only heir and legal representative of the said deceased. Considering the death certificate and other documents annexed to the petition, and considering the fact that in spite of proclamation issued, no objections were raised by any person, this Court issued heirship certificate in favour of the petitioner therein. On perusal of the record, it is clear that proclamation was issued on 10th December, 2009. The petitioner in the said petition had applied for legal heirship certificate since the same was required to be produced before the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for getting the employment in place of the said deceased who was working with the Municipal Corporation. It was stated in the petition that except the petitioner (respondent herein) there was no other legal heir and/or legal representative of the said deceased.

3. Petitioner No. 4 is the mother of the said deceased. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the strained relations between the said deceased and Smt. Anjana Bhimrao Jadhav who was married to the said deceased, the said Smt. Anjana Bhimrao Jadhav was staying separately from the said deceased and executed a writing dated 8th July, 1988 expressing her desire to separate from the said deceased to enable him to do second marriage. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Smt. Anjana Bhimrao Jadhav gave her no objection in favour of the said deceased for getting married again. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of such writing executed by the first wife of the said deceased, petitioner No. 1 married the said deceased on 23rd June, 1991 at Samaj Mandir Hall, Shell Colony, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071. Petitioner has placed reliance on the copy of the wedding card of the said marriage and also marriage certificate dated 4th August, 2010 issued by Buddhist Society of India certifying that petitioner No. 1 and the said deceased had married on 23rd June, 1991 at Samaj Mandir Hall as per Boudha rites. From wedlock of the said deceased, petitioner No. 2 was bom on 10th April, 1992 and petitioner No. 3 was bom on 1st November, 1996. Copies of the birth certificates of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 issued by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai are annexed. Petitioners have also placed reliance upon the copy of the ‘Form of dependents’ submitted by the deceased with the Municipal Corporation to demonstrate that the names of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were disclosed as relatives of the said deceased in the records of the Municipal Corporation. Reliance is also placed on the ration card of the said deceased to demonstrate that the names of all the petitioners are entered into ration card of the said deceased.

4. On 6th May, 2008, 23rd June, 2008, 18th July, 2008, petitioners made an application to the Municipal Corporation requesting to remit service dues of the said deceased to the petitioners and learnt that respondent had also applied to the Municipal Corporation by his advocate's letter dated 16th May, 2009 for release of service dues of the said deceased and also applied for employment on compassionate ground. The respondent had also raised objection for release of service dues of the said deceased to the petitioner No. 1 on the ground that the marriage of petitioner No. 1 with the said deceased was illegal. Municipal