IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an unregistered Gift Deed lacks legal validity and that only direct heirs have standing to contest Heirship Certificates under the applicable laws.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. Joseph Mangsuanhau, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is a Regular Second Appeal filed against the Judgment & Order of the Court of Additional District Judge-I, District Court, Aizawl in RFA No. 24 of 2022 dated 31.07.2023, wherein, the learned appellate court dismissed the regular first appeal against the issuance of the Heirship Certificate No. 857 of 2021 dated 20.09.2021 to the present respondent No. 1, by the learned Sr. Civil Judge-II, Aizawl District.

3. The case of the appellant in a nutshell, is that the deceased Vanlaltanpuii and the appellant had executed a Gift Deed (Ram in pekna) dated 04.03.2021, wherein the deceased Smt. Vanlaltanpuii had given him the portion of the landed property covered under the LSC No. 470 of 1992 for the Rs. 1,00,000/- which he had given to the deceased Vanlaltanpuii to look after herself and for purchase of her medicines. However the Gift deed was not registered due to the Covid-19 Pandemic and the weak health condition of the deceased Vanlaltanpuii. That on the death of the deceased Smt. Vanlatanpuii on 27.08.2022, the appellant was aware that the impugned Heirship certificate No. 857 of 2021 was issued to respondent No. 1 in respect of the LSC No. 470 of 1992, but he did not raise any objection immediately, because he was given the impression that his portion of land, as per the Gift deed, would be mutated in his name. The appellant had even assisted the respondent no. 2 to mutate the LSC No. 470 of 1992 in the name of respondent No. 1, who was the grandson of the deceased Smt. Vanlaltanpuii. Instead, the respondents had filed an FIR against him, on the allegation that he had forged the signature of the deceased Smt. Vanlaltanpuii on the said Sale/Gift Deed “Ram in pekna.” As a result, the appellant challenged the Heirship Certificate No. 857 of 2021, issued to Respondent No. 1, before the Learned Addl. District Court Aizawl by filling a regular first appeal under Section 17 (2)(a) of the Mizoram Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 2007 read with Section 96 and Order 41 of CPC in RFA No. 24 of 2022. The main grounds of appeal was that, public notice was not issued before the issuance of the impugned Heirship Certificate No. 857 of 2021, inspite of the fact that the respondent no. 1 and had knowledge of the Sale/gift deed, executed between the deceased Smt. Vanlaltanpuii and the appellant and thus the impugned Heirship certificate was obtained through fraud.That the learned Senior Civil Judge was hastened to issue the impugned Heirship Certificate in favour of Respondent No. 1, based on the no objection certificate executed by the wife of the late son of the deceased Smt. Vanlaltanpuii and the other surviving grandchildren of the deceased, respondents No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5 respectively, respectively. The appellant contended that he was an interested party in the issuance of the Heirship certificate since he was also a related to the deceased Smt. Vanlaltanpuii being her grandson/’tupa’. He had shown how he could be termed a grandson/’tupa’ by giving the details of their family - tree.

4. The contention of the respondents was that the appellant was not a close relative of the deceased Vanlaltanpuii, while the respondent no. 1 was her grandson. That the deceased had lived at Ramhlun Sports Complex with the respondents, who are the wife and children of her son (late) and the deceased Vanlaltanpuii, sometimes stayed at Zemabawk where she had lived with her husband (late). That the respondents looked after the deceased Vanlaltanpuii and paid all her hospital bills. That they met the appellant for the first time, only after the death of Pi Vanlaltanpuii. That under the relevant laws in Mizoram, the appellant has no locus standi to inherit the properties of the deceased Vanlaltanpuii and that the signature of the deceased Vanlaltanpuii on the alleged sale/gift deed was very doubtful which