SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Bom) 382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. PATEL, J.
Ankit Bhagwaticharan Verma – Petitioner
Vs.
Vinita Ankit Verma – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition (L) No. 2428 of 2015
Decided On : 16-03-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gajendra Jaywant Waity

The Legal Heir-ship Certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 does not require the production of ancestral death certificates.

Headnote:

Legal Heir-ship Certificate - Application for Legal Heir-ship Certificate under Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 - Sections 1, 2, 4, 7 discussed

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner applied for a Legal Heir-ship Certificate under Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, stating that the deceased died intestate and was survived by the petitioner and their two children. The department raised objections regarding the production of the death certificate of the deceased's mother.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the department's insistence on the production of the deceased's mother's death certificate was unnecessary and not in line with the provisions of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827.

Issues: The main issue was the requirement of producing the death certificate of the deceased's mother for the Legal Heir-ship Certificate application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 do not necessitate the production of ancestral death certificates for the issuance of a Legal Heir-ship Certificate.

Final Decision: The court dispensed with the departmental requisitions, accepted the petitioner's statement regarding legal heirs, and made the petition returnable on a specified date.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. PATEL, J.

1. This is the usual application for issue of a Legal Heir-ship Certificate under Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. The case of this Petitioner is that she is the widow of one Ankit Bhagwaticharan Verma, who died in Kalyan on 11th May 2015. Durign his lifetime, the deceased lived in Mumbai. The Petitioner says that the deceased died intestate. A copy of his death certificate is annexed. The Petitioner says that the deceased was survived by herself and their two children, a daughter aged 16 years and a minor son aged 8 years. These three names are mentioned in the tabulation below paragraph 4 of the petition. Below this paragraph is one sentence that the mother of the deceased, Ankit’s mother died before him. It is on this statement that the department seems to have taken some sort of objection and asked for production of the death certificate of the deceased’s mother.

2. I am unable to understand why and on what basis under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 any such objection is being raised. It cannot be an invariable requirement in each and every case. In a particular case if a Court feels, on the facts of that case, that it requires to be further satisfied on about the genuineness of that application, then a Court may certainly in its discretion ask for additional documents. But in doing this, the Court must have regard to the nature of the application and what is intended by it and what the Regulation itself provides.

3. In the first place Regulation 1 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 says that where a person dies leaving property of any description, the heir, executor or administrator may assume the management or sue for recovery of the property in conformity with law or applicable usage without making any previous application to the Court to be formally recognised.

4. Section 2 then says that if an heir, executor or administrator wishes to have his right formally recognised, an application is to be made to Court. Section 2 is interestingly worded. It reads thus:-

“2. First—But if an heir, executor or administrator is desirous of having his right formally recognized by the Court; for the purpose of rendering it more safe for persons in possession of, or indebted to, the estate to acknowledge and deal with him, the Judge, on application, shall issue a proclamation, in the form contained in Appendix A, inviting all persons who dispute the right of the Applicant to appear in the Court within one month from the date of the proclamation and enter their objections, and declaring that, if no sufficient objection is offered, the Judge will proceed to receive of the proof of the right of the Applicant and, if satisfied, grant him a certificate of heir-ship, executor-ship or administrator-ship.

Second—[Publication for proclamation] Rep. Act, XII of 1873.”

5. Read together, Sections 1 and 2 can only mean that no heir-ship application is absolutely necessary in law, but the application is only meant to allow an heir, executor or administrator who wishes to have an heir-ship certificate at his option so that, in the words of the statute, it is “more safe” for others who are dealing with the deceased’s assets to acknowledge and deal with such heir, executor or administrator.

6. Section 2 also provides for the issuance of proclamation; yet another safeguard. Sections 3 and 4 deal with the process that follows. Section 4 makes it clear that the investigation is of a summary nature and that if the issue is complicated the Court may suspend the proceedings in the application for a certificate until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties.

7. We are not concerned with Section 5 which deals with the authenticity of a Will. We are, however, concerned with Section 7 which needs to be set out in full. It has three parts and they read thus:

“7. First—An heir, executor or administrator, holding the proper certificate, may do all acts and grant all deeds competent to a l











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top