Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3 The facts of the present case may be briefly noted as follows:

In or about 1969, the marriage of respondent no.1 and the deceased was solemnized at Malvan. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1982, respondent no.1 deserted the deceased, ever since when the deceased and respondent no.1 were living separately. It is claimed that eventually, in or about 1983, there was a customary divorce between the deceased and respondent no.1. It is the case of the petitioners that on 25 th May, 1984, the deceased married petitioner no.1 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. It is claimed that not only did respondent no.1 not object to the marriage, but she herself made arrangements for the same. On 10th November, 1986 and 7th August, 1993, petitioner nos.2 and 3 were, respectively, born from the wedlock between the deceased and petitioner no.1. It is the case of the rpa 3/14 mpt-32-17.doc petitioners that they were living with the deceased in the tenement which was being redeveloped through Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA", for short). Pending such redevelopment, on or about 14th August, 2013, the deceased passed away. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 started receiving monthly compensation of Rs.14,000/- from the developer M/s.Surana Constructions, and continued to do so till about March 2016. Around March 2016, the petitioners learnt, on an application under Right to Information Act, that the respondents had obtained legal heirship certificate in respect of their alleged heirship of the deceased through Misc. Application No.160 of 2015. The petitioners also learnt that based on the legal heirship certificate, the Collector had added the name of respondent no.1 in Annexure-II in respect of the redevelopment project. The petitioners raised an objection before the SRA, concerning inclusion of the name of respondent no.1 in Annexure-II. The objection was rejected by SRA. In the premises, the present petition for revocation of the legal heirship certificate is moved by the petitioners before this Court. 

        rpa                                    6/14                                    mpt-32-17.doc




      7                 A legal heirship certificate was issued in the present

case under the provisions of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. The regulation (Section 2 thereof) inter-alia provides that if any heir is desirous of having his right formally recognized by the Court, the judge, on an application of such heir, shall issue a proclamation in the form contained in Appendix - A to the Regulation, inviting all persons, who dispute the right of the applicant, to appear in the Court and submit their objections, and if, no sufficient objection is offered to the application, the judge shall proceed to receive proof of the right of the applicant and upon being satisfied, grant a certificate of heirship to the applicant. It is also to be noted that by virtue of Section 390 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, various provisions contained in Part-X of that Act concerning succession certificates including Section 383 of that Act are made applicable, so far as may be, to the heirship certificates granted under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. Section 383 of the Succession Act provides for revocation of any succession certificate granted under Part-X , inter-alia in a case where (i) the proceedings to obtain such certificate were defective in substance [clause (a)] or (ii) the certificate was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or by concealment from rpa 7/14 mpt-32-17.doc the Court of something material to the case [clause (b)]. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners in the present case is, firstly, that since issuance of proclamation is an essential condition for accepting the claim of heirship and issue a heirship certificate and that condition was not followed in the present case, the proceedings to obtain the heirship certificate can be said to be defective in substance. It is secondly submitted that inasmuch as there is a fraudulent suggestion on the part of the respondents herein whilst obtaining the heirship certificate that they were the only legal heirs and next of kin to the deceased, as also an active concealment of the fact of the second marriage of the deceased with petitioner no.1 and birth of two daughters (petitioner nos.2 and 3) from out of that wedlock, the heirship certificate is liable to be revoked.

8 It is pertinent to note that as far as clause (a) of Section 383 is concerned, a case must be made out that the proceedings were defective in substance. The petitioners claim that since the proclamation was mandatory under the provisions of Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, issuance of heirship certificate in the present case was defective for want of such proclamation. It is pertinent to note in this behalf that the rpa 8/14 mpt-32-17.doc proclamation was dispensed with by an express order of the Court. If the misc. petition for heirship certificate was pressed before the Court, without issuing the proclamation as per the dispensation granted by the Court, the proceedings cannot be said to be defective in substance. It is another matter if without seeking any dispensation the heirship certificate was applied for without such proclamation. In such case, the proceedings would be defective in substance. So long as the order of the Court providing for dispensation of the proclamation stands and is not set aside, it is not for any party to claim that proceedings to obtain heirship certificate without a proclamation suffer from any defect in substance. There is, accordingly, no merit in the first objection raised by the petitioner.

11 The next question to be considered is whether this concealment is said to be an active concealment by a person having knowledge or belief of the fact or the false suggestion is made by a person who does not believe the same to be true. At the very outset, in this behalf, it must be noted that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 are real sisters. It is inherently improbable that respondent no.1 would be ignorant of the fact that her real sister was living with her deceased husband and two daughters were born to her from him. Besides, it is important to note that in the face of elaborate assertions of the petitioners in their misc. petition that the deceased married petitioner no.1 on 25th May, 1984 and the two were living together from 1985 till the time of his death and petitioner nos.2 and 3 were born out of that wedlock on 10th November, 1986 and 1983, backed by voluminous record in proof of such assertions, all that one finds in the respondents' reply to the misc. petition is a bare denial of the relevant paragraphs as a whole (paragraphs 7,8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the misc. petition), by a one liner that the respondents deny and do not admit the contents thereof and put the petitioners to rpa 12/14 mpt-32-17.doc the strict proof. The third important circumstance in this behalf to be noted is that not only had the deceased himself executed an affidavit on 21st September, 2004, for including the names of the petitioners herein as his legal heirs in the records of his employer, by asserting his marriage with petitioner no.1 and birth of his two daughters, namely, petitioner nos.2 and 3, there is also an affidavit by respondent no.1 herself testifying to the correctness of the affidavit of the deceased. Though the respondents contest the factum as well as the affirmation of the aforesaid two affidavits, in the face of the voluminous evidence referred to above and in the face of the rival pleadings of the parties in the misc. petition, by a preponderance of probabilities, the making of the affidavits is clearly believable. In the face of this evidence, the respondents, and particularly respondent no.1, who was the applicant in the original misc. petition for heirship certificate, can certainly be fastened with the knowledge of the marriage between the deceased and petitioner no.1 and, at any rate, the birth of petitioner nos.2 and 3 out of the said wedlock. The second ingredient of clause (b) is accordingly made out. 12 Insofar as other considerations are concerned, the only objections raised by the respondents to the present rpa 13/14 mpt-32-17.doc application for revocation are on the ground, firstly, that the petitioners herein did not at any time apply for any succession or heirship certificate, and, secondly, the petitioners have encroached upon and forcibly occupied some other properties of the deceased. None of the objections is material or germane from the point of view of the present revocation application. There is no compulsion for any legal heir of a deceased predecessor to either apply for a succession certificate or a heirship certificate. In fact, as required by Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1982, it is only when the heir is desirous of having his right formally recognized by a Court that he needs to apply to the Judge for a heirship certificate. Forcible possession or occupation of the property of the deceased is, by its very nature, neither here nor there insofar as the present revocation application is concerned.