2025:BHC-AS:54793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.14292 OF 2025

Muthukumar M Konar and Anr. ... Petitioners

versus

Praju Subramaniyam Konar and Anr. … Respondents

Mr. R.V.Sippy, for Petitioners. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

DATE : 9 DECEMBER 2025

ORAL ORDER:

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.

2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 5 May 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thane, whereby the application preferred by the Petitioners, who are brother and sister of late Subramaniyam Sundari Konar, who has passed away on 6 March 2022, to intervene in the proceedings filed

by the Respondents, came to be rejected.

ARUN

R SA A N M K C P H A A L NDRA 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the wife and son of late

Digitally signed by

ARUN

RAMCHANDRA

SANKPAL

Date: 2025.12.12 Subramaniyam Sundari Konar, have filed an application for grant of heirship

19:01:41 +0530

certificate under Bombay Regulation Act, 1827. The Petitioners sought intervention in the said heirship application as the Respondents are seeking a declaration that they are entitled to specific share in the property described at

Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 in the said application.

4. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge has rejected the application observing, inter alia, that the Petitioners are not the Class I heirs, of the deceased.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the prayers in the heirship certificate are not restricted to the grant of heirship certificate only, but pertain to substantive rights in the properties, one of which has been acquired by the Petitioner No.2.

6. It would be suffice to clarify that in an application for heirship certificate, the question of title to the property cannot be inquired into. The scope of the application for grant of heirship certificate is very limited and the court is not expected to delve into the title to the property.

7. A useful reference in this context can be made to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aloysius Manuel D’Souza & Ors Vs Mary Kamala william Manuel D’Souza,, 2006(6) Bom CR 56. wherein the import of the heirship certificate was expounded as under:

“9. The grant of heirship certificate does not establish the right of such party in the property of the deceased by itself. In this view of the matter, the rights of the appellants, if any, in the property of the deceased are not taken away by grant of heirship certificate to the Respondent No.1. On the other hand, Clause 7 further makes it clear that such heirship certificate holder is accountable to all persons having an interest in the property for the acts so done by him or her.”

8. In the case of Group Grampanchayat Vs Sunanda Shamrao Bandishti &

Ors, 2011(5) Bom CR 162. wherein it was enunciated as under:

“8 … … … In a proceedings for heirship certificate, the court is not required to determine title of the deceased to any property. It is required only to consider whether the persons claiming heirship certificate are the heirs of the deceased. If any person comes forward to claim nearer kinship than the applicants, the rival claims for the applicant and the person claiming nearer kinship and to be an heir would be considered by the Court. The court may decline to grant heirship certificate to any applicant and come to the conclusion that the applicant is not an heir of the deceased or that there are nearer kins who are entitled to the heirship certificate. The question of title to the property allegedly held by the deceased is alien to such enquiry. Whether the deceased had any title to the property is not and indeed cannot be decided by the Court in an application for an heirship certificate made under the Regulation.”

9. In the case of Ganpati Vinayak Achwal, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1193. another learned Single Judge of this Court held that an heirship certificate does not bestow the status of an heir upon a person. Grant of such a Certificate is only a formal recognition of