This Misc. Petition seeks revocation of a Legal Heirship Certificate granted under Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, in favour of the respondents herein.

2. Petitioner no.1 claims to be the widow of the deceased Chandrakant Shantaram Shankardas, while petitioner nos.2 and 3 claim to be the daughters of the deceased through petitioner no.1. The respondents were applicants for heirship certificate in Misc. Petition No.160 of 2015. Respondent no.1 claims to be the wife of the deceased and respondent nos.2 to 4 claim to be his daughters through respondent no.1. The deceased was a retired army officer who died intestate on 14th August, 2013.

3. The facts of the present case may be briefly noted as follows:

In or about 1969, the marriage of respondent no.1 and the deceased was solemnized at Malvan. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1982, respondent no.1 deserted the deceased, ever since when the deceased and respondent no.1 were living separately. It is claimed that eventually, in or about 1983, there was a customary divorce between the deceased and respondent no.1. It is the case of the petitioners that on 25th May, 1984, the deceased married petitioner no.1 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is claimed that not only did respondent no.1 not object to the marriage, but she herself made arrangements for the same. On 10th November, 1986 and 7th August, 1993, petitioner nos.2 and 3 were, respectively, born from the wedlock between the deceased and petitioner no.1. It is the case of the petitioners that they were living with the deceased in the tenement which was being redeveloped through Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”, for short). Pending such redevelopment, on or about 14th August, 2013, the deceased passed away. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 started receiving monthly compensation of Rs.14,000/- from the developer M/s. Surana Constructions, and continued to do so till about March 2016. Around March 2016, the petitioners learnt, on an application under Right to Information Act, that the respondents had obtained legal heirship certificate in respect of their alleged heirship of the deceased through Misc. Application No.160 of 2015. The petitioners also learnt that based on the legal heirship certificate, the Collector had added the name of respondent no.1 in Annexure–II in respect of the redevelopment project. The petitioners raised an objection before the SRA, concerning inclusion of the name of respondent no.1 in Annexure–II. The objection was rejected by SRA. In the premises, the present petition for revocation of the legal heirship certificate is moved by the petitioners before this Court.

4. The record of the case reveals that Misc. Petition No.160 of 2015, under Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, was moved before this Court on 10th September, 2015, in pursuance of a requisition by SRA to that effect. It also appears that the misc. petition moved by the respondents herein does not refer to either the desertion or customary divorce between respondent no.1 and the deceased or the marriage of the deceased to petitioner no.1 or birth of petitioner nos.2 and 3 out of the second wedlock. The misc. petition, on the other hand, claims the respondents to be the only heirs and next of kin of the deceased in accordance with law. It also appears that this Court, vide order dated 14th December, 2015, dispensed with the proclamation and, thereafter, on January 2016, made the petition absolute and directed issuance of heirship certificate in favour of the respondents.

5. The basis of the present revocation application is that, firstly, the proceedings to obtain the heirship certificate were defective in substance, inasmuch as the mandatory requirement of a proclamation was dispensed with and, secondly, the certificate itself was obtained fraudulently by making of false suggestions and concealment from the Court of material facts. It is submitted that the desertion an