The grant of heirship certificate is a formal recognition for property management and does not confer ownership rights. The refusal of the certificate does not finally determine the rights of the applicants and they can still establish their claim through a separate legal proceeding.

1. By this revision, the applicants are challenging the order passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on 14.09.2016 in M.J.C. No.279/2011, thereby rejecting the application filed by the applicant for grant of heirship certificate.

2. Brief facts of the revision can be stated as follows:

One Eknath Ganesh Kasture was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.138 situated at Mouza Patunda, Tah. Nandura, District Buldhana and house bearing No.328 situated at village Alampur, Tah. Nandura. He died in the year 1958, leaving behind his widow Janabai, son Laxman and married daughter Nanibai. Janabai died on 01.12.1981. She was survived by the two sons by name Arvind and Baban and two daughters by name Nanibai and Malti. Laxman died on 02.12.2009 and his wife Vimal died on 21.07.1992. Arvind the son of Nanibai died on 30.12.1998 and his wife Sindhu died on 08.02.2004, they were survived by non-applicant No.1 Parag and non-applicant No.2 Sharad. Baban, Nalini, Devki @ Malti, who were the children of Nanibai, are the applicants in this case.

3. According to the applicants, during her life time Nanibai has executed a Will in favour of her son on 01.10.2003, which was registered on 15.10.2003 before Sub-Registrar, Nagpur, bequeathing her property and share in favour of her son applicant No.1Baban. On the basis of this will-deed executed by Nanibai, the applicants herein filed the application for grant of heirship certificate under the provisions of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, submitting that they have become the owners of the property left behind by Eknath and which was succeeded by Nanibai and as Nanibai has bequeathed the same to applicant No.1Baban. It was also contended that as Laxman had died issueless, his share in the property is also devolved upon the applicants and hence they are entitled to manage the whole of the property, left behind by Eknath.

4. On this application filed by the applicants, the citation was published on 17.02.2012 in daily 'Tarun Bharat' Akola vide Exh.12. Within the stipulated period of one month from the publication of citation, no objections were received. However, six months thereafter, on 06.10.2012 the non-applicants herein raised objection by filing detailed reply vide Exh.28.

5. Therefore to prove their claim for heirship certificate to the property left behind by Eknath and then by Nanibai, applicant No.1 examined himself and lead the evidence of the attesting witness Shridhar Paunikar and the scribe to the Will, namely Advocate Ram Bhide. Accordingly the Will of Nanibai was proved vide Exh.66. Applicants then also relied upon the pursis, which was filed by non-applicants in another proceeding between the parties, in which they have had admitted the execution and contents of the Will of Nanibai and stated that they have relinquished their share in the said property and hence their names should not be brought on record. The applicants relied upon these two pursis filed by non-applicant No.1Parag and non-applicant No.2 Sharad on 08.03.2005 vide Exh.58 and 59 in R.C.S. No.12/1992. It was thus contended by applicants before the Trial Court that they are now entitled to get the heirship certificate, on the basis of the Will executed by Nanibai and in view of the pursis filed by non-applicants admitting the execution and contents of the said Will and relinquishing their right in the properties.

6. The grievance of the applicants is that despite this documentary and oral evidence produced on record by the applicants, the learned Trial Court has rejected their application for grant of heirship certificate on the basis of the false affidavit filed by non-applicant No.2 Sharad claiming ownership right in the property on the basis of the alleged will-deed executed by Laxman. It is therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly considered the provisions of the Bombay Regulation Act, and also the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. It is submitted that the applicants bei