Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners had filed an application for grant of legal heirship certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 (hereinafter referred to "Regulation"). The said application was granted by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur by judgment and order dated 13/06/2017. An application was filed KHUNTE by the respondent on 02/03/2017 under the very same Regulation for grant of legal heirship certificate wherein the petitioners were made parties as non-applicants. The respondent specifically described certain properties in the said application and a declaration was sought to the effect that the respondent was legal heir of deceased Parasram Fakira More. It is not in dispute that the legal heirship certificate already granted in favour of the petitioners also pertained to the said deceased Parasram Fakira More.

5. The petitioners appeared in the said subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondent and filed an application for dismissal of the proceedings, which was marked as Exhibit-18. It was contended in the said application on behalf of the petitioners that since they had been granted legal heirship certificate by order dated 13/06/2017 passed by the Court of Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur, the application filed by the respondent was not maintainable. By impugned order dated 18/06/2018, the Trial Court in the present case had rejected the said application holding that there was a possibility that the KHUNTE petitioners had obtained the legal heirship certificate in their favour by suppressing material facts.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Nitin Sonare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the impugned order did not deserve any interference because it was correctly held that KHUNTE subsequent application filed by the respondent was indeed maintainable. It was submitted that when the application was filed by the respondent, he was not aware about grant of legal heirship certificate in favour of petitioners and that in any case, such certificate had been obtained by suppression of material facts by the petitioners. It was submitted that on a proper reading of section 387 of the Act of 1925, it would be evident that when the words "any other proceedings" were used in the said provision, it included an application in the nature filed by the respondent under the aforesaid Regulation for grant of legal heirship certificate. It was further submitted that in such an application the Court could certainly go into the question of validity of grant of legal heirship certificate in favour of petitioners. The learned counsel relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Manda R. Pande v. Smt.Jankibai S. Dubey, 2006 (2) Mh.L.J., 162.

9. The respondent filed the aforesaid application before the Trial Court i.e. Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, under the said Regulation claiming that he was entitled to grant legal heirship certificate wherein he indeed joined the petitioners as non-applicants. It is the case of the respondent that since he was not aware of grant of legal heirship certificate in favour of the KHUNTE petitioners, she did not make any mention of the same and that, in any case according to her, she was the only person entitled to be declared as legal heir of deceased Parasram More. The question is whether in such an application filed under the aforesaid Regulation for grant of legal heirship certificate, the respondent could claim that by implication, it had to be inferred that she was challenging the legal heirship certificate granted to the petitioners. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, such an application was maintainable under section 387 of the Act of 1925 because apart from the word "suit", the words "any other proceedings" were used in the said provision. According to the learned counsel, the application so filed on behalf of the respondent was included under the said expression and that such an application was to be treated as an application under Part X of the said Act, pertaining to succession certificate and there was no question of the application being rejected as being not maintainable.