Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. On March 3, 2005, the learned Testamentary Judge of this Court ordered issuance of heirship certificate of the deceased William Manual D'souza in favour of Mary Kamala William D'Souza (respondent No. 1). Aggrieved thereby, the present appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. Aloysius Manuel D'Souza - appellant No. 1 is the brother of late William Manual D'Souza (hereinafter referred to as the "said deceased"). Denzil Alfred D'Souza - appellant No. 2 is the son of one Ancey D'Souza (sister of the said deceased). Julious Machado -appellant No. 3 is the husband of one Ethel D'Souza (sister of the deceased) and Clifford George D'Souza - appellant No. 4 is the son of Hilda D'Souza (sister of the deceased).

3. The appellants have prayed for grant of leave to file the appeal and also for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

4. Mary Kamala claims to be the widow of the said deceased. She applied for issuance of legal heirship certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. Chapter I thereof provides for Rules for the recognition of heirs, executors and administrators when there is a competent claimant while Chapter II provides for the appointment of an Administrator by the Zila Court when there is no heir or executor competent and willing to be placed in possession.

8. The appellants seek to submit that Mary Kamala never married the said deceased and she is not his widow and, therefore, not entitled to the estate of the deceased.

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.

10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, it needs no emphasis that based on the heirship certificate simplicitor, the respondent No. 1 cannot be said to have acquired any right or title in the estate of the deceased.

11. The respondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit dated 19.8.2006 before us stating therein that she has been residing at flat No. 2-C, 2nd floor, IL Palazzo Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Little Gibs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbiai, and that she has not created any third party rights in respect of the said flat. She has further undertaken that for a period upto 18.11.2006, she will not apply to IL Palazzio Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. for transfer of Share Certificate in her name in respect of the said flat on the basis of the legal heirship certificate. An affidavit has also been filed by the Constituted Attorney of the respondent No. 1 on 19.8.2006 stating therein that he has not created any third party rights in respect of the said flat and that no application shall be made by him to the society for transfer of the Share Certificate in the name of respondent No. 1 in respect of the said flat upto 18.11.2006 and that until that date, as a Constituted Attorney, he shall not sell, transfer, mortgage, alienate or create any third party rights in respect of the said flat.