Bombay High Court
Shri. Ashok Maruti Palange vs Smt. Malati Raghunath Palange And Ors. on 2 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:16111
21 SA 298-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2020
Ashok Maruti Palange ... Appellant.
Versus
Smt. Malati Raghunath Palange and Ors. ... Respondents.
----------
Mr Prakash Mahadik a/w. Sanjay Ranjane, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr Sagar G. Talekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : April 02, 2026 P.C. :
1. The Second Appeal is at the instance of the original Opponent challenging the legal heirship certificate granted by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court. The deceased was one Raghunath Maruti Palange and the application came to be filed by the wife and the children of the deceased claiming to be the surviving legal heirs.
2. The Appellant herein is the brother of the deceased and had opposed the application claiming that the Applicants are not entitled to legal heirship certificate as there is no reference about the property in respect of which the heirship certificate is required.
sa_mandawgad 1 of 3
21 SA 298-2020.doc
The Trial Court held that in proceedings seeking heirship certificate, the Court is not required to determine the title of the deceased to the property and the only inquiry contemplated is whether a person claiming heirship certificate is legal heir of the deceased.
3. As against the grant of heirship certificate, the appeal came to be filed and the First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the findings of the Trial Court dismissed the Appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant would assail the findings and would submit that the particular and description of the property of the deceased is required to be stated in the application, so that the necessary court fees on the market value can be paid. He submits that as the application for legal heirship did not have any mention of the property, appropriate court fee was not paid.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents relies upon the decision in the case of Group Grampanchayat, Sasavane vs. Sunanda Shamrao Bandishti and Ors. 1 and would submit that the settled position in law is that in a proceeding for heirship certificate, the Court is not required to determine the title of the deceased to any property and the only inquiry is as to whether the 1 [2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 424 sa_mandawgad 2 of 3 21 SA 298-2020.doc Applicants are heirs of the deceased.
6. Perusal of the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court would indicate that there are concurrent findings in accordance with the settled position in law that in proceedings heirship certificate, the only inquiry which is contemplated is to whether the person seeking the heirship certificate are the heirs of the deceased. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has rightly formulated the correct proposition and has answered the same in favour of the Applicants by holding that the Applicants are the heirs of the deceased Raghunath and entitled to heirship certificate. The decision in the case of Group Grampanchayat, Sasavane vs. Sunanda Shamrao Bandishti and Ors. (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the findings do not suffer from any perversity.
7. The Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law.
There is no merit in the Second Appeal and is dismissed.
8. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, pending Civil/Interim Application, if any, does not survive and same stands dismissed.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
sa_mandawgad 3 of 3
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/04/2026 17:45:58