Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, J.
Gitadevi Ramprakash Podar – Appellant
Vs.
Pragnesh Narayan Podar and others – Respondents
Miscellaneous Petition (L) No.24140 of 2023 In Miscellaneous Petition No.357 of 2023
Decided on : 12-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Sheetal Kumar, Ms. Priyanka Bhandari and Mr. Sanket Dhawan
For the Respondent:Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Prerak A. Sharma, Mr.Chaitanya Mehta, Ms. Sonali Agarwal and Ms. Serena M. Jethmalani i/b. Mr Prerak A. Sharma, Mr. Sharan H. Jagtiani, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Rohit P. Mahadik, Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Mr. Nihir U. Dedhia i/b. Rohit P. Mahadik
Headnote:
Revocation - Legal Heirship Certificate - Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 - [Clause 1, Clause 2, Clause 4, Clause 7] - The court examined the revocation petition in the context of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 and the circumstances in which the issuance of proclamation can be dispensed with. The court emphasized the purpose of issuing proclamation under clause 2 of the Regulation, indicating that proclamation can be dispensed with only when all the legal heirs come together and express their consent and willingness for the application of the petitioner to be granted. The court also highlighted the significance of the second part of clause 4 of the Regulation, which provides for suspension of proceedings if a complicated or difficult question arises. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for revocation, stating that the right of the petitioner to claim her status as one of the legal heirs of the deceased was still inchoate and not crystallized, and that the legal heirship certificate does not decide title to property.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought revocation of a legal heirship certificate, alleging suppression of vital information and fraud by the respondents in obtaining the certificate. The petitioner claimed to be the biological mother of the deceased and asserted her entitlement to a share in his estate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for revocation was not justified as the right of the petitioner to claim her status as one of the legal heirs of the deceased was still inchoate and not crystallized. The court emphasized that the legal heirship certificate does not decide title to property and that the petitioner's claims could be addressed in appropriate civil proceedings.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the alleged suppression of vital information and fraud by the respondents in obtaining the legal heirship certificate, and the interpretation of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in the context of dispensing with proclamation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, emphasizing the purpose of issuing proclamation, the significance of the second part of clause 4 of the Regulation, and the inchoate nature of the petitioner's claim as a legal heir. The court also highlighted that the legal heirship certificate does not decide title to property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for revocation of the legal heirship certificate, stating that the petitioner's claims could be addressed in appropriate civil proceedings. The court also rejected the petitioner's request for a stay of the order, allowing the department to issue the legal heirship certificate.
ORDER :
By this petition, the petitioner is seeking revocation of legal heirship certificate granted by order dated 11.07.2023, certifying that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are legal heirs of deceased Narayan Podar. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents herein, who had filed the petition for grant of legal heirship certificate, suppressed vital information from this Court, thereby obtaining dispensation of proclamation while pursuing their petition for grant of legal heirship certificate.
2. The petitioner claims to be the biological mother of the deceased Narayan Podar. On that basis, she claims to be one of the legal heirs of Narayan Podar and hence entitled to 1/4th share in his estate. The petitioner refers to and relies upon a suit bearing Suit (L) No.15592 of 2023, wherein she has sought a declaration that the deceased Narayan Podar was her son from her husband Ramprakash Podar. She has denied the alleged adoption of deceased Narayan Podar by Tejpal Podar i.e. the brother of her husband and she has further sought declaration with regard to her 1/4th share in the estate of the deceased Narayan. The petitioner has arrayed the respondents herein as defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the said suit. It is specifically stated that in an interim application moved in the said suit, notices were served upon the respondents on 30.06.2023 and the papers pertaining to the suit as well as the application were also served upon them.
3. It is further stated that the interim application in the aforesaid suit was heard before this Court on 04.07.2023, wherein the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed their affidavit in reply and that after hearing the parties, this Court had directed that the other defendants in the said suit would file their reply affidavits. The petitioner asserts that when respondent No.1 pressed for a clarification with respect to an eviction suit filed by him against the petitioner, pending before the Small Causes Court, in the said order dated 04.07.2023, this Court clarified that the pendency of the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner would not have any effect on any other proceedings pending between the parties and that the pending proceedings shall be decided in accordance with law.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that despite being put to notice in the aforesaid suit and even after having appeared before this Court, the respondents did not take any steps to inform the learned Single Judge of this Court before whom the petition for grant of legal heirship certificate was listed on 11.07.2023. The said facts were suppressed. As a consequence, the learned Single Judge of this Court hearing the said petition was not aware about the claim being raised by the petitioner and on the basis of consent affidavits filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the said petition for grant of legal heirship certificate filed by the respondent No.1, this Court dispensed with issuance of proclamation and proceeded to allow the petition. According to the petitioner, this amounted to suppression of vital facts from this Court.
5. Apart from this, the petitioner claims that respondent Nos.2 and 3 themselves had filed affidavits in the petition for grant of legal heirship certificate and they had withdrawn their consent, but this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.07.2023 when the earlier consent affidavits were taken on record, proclamation was dispensed with and the petition was allowed for issuance of legal heirship certificate. According to the petitioner, this amounted to fraud upon the Court, necessitating revocation of the legal heirship certificate.
6. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present petition referred to and relied upon the pendency of the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner before this Court and the fact that the respondents were served. It was submitted that the subsequent affidavits filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 withdrawing their cons
