Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Respondents filed an application under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 for an heirship certificate as heirs of late Radhabai Damodar Joshi/Bhatt/Tisgaonkar/Newaskar. Radhabai died on 1 January 1990 leaving behind her certain movable and immovable properties including Gat No.145 (Old survey no.46/1).

Since the present petitioner i.e. Group Grampanchayat Sasavane, was not willing to recognise the respondents to be the heirs of Radhabai, the petitioner applied to the court of Civil Judge, Sr.Division, Baramati for an heirship certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. In the application for the heirship certificate, the respondents initially gave the description of all properties left behind by Radhabai. Though in my view unnecessary, the respondents joined the State of Maharashtra and the Group Grampanchayat Sasavane, (petitioner herein) as parties to the application for heirship certificate. Later on, the respondents made an application for amendment of their application so as to delete the description of the properties alleged to have been inherited by them from Radhabai and addition of the following prayer:

6. Interpreting the Regulation, in Aloysius Manuel D'souza & ors. Vs. Mary Kamala William Manuel D'souza, 2006(6) Bom.C.R. 56, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the grant of heirship certificate does not establish the right of a party in property of the deceased by itself. The right, if any, of a person claiming ownership in the property of the deceased are not taken away by grant of an heirship certificate to an heir. On the other hand, clause 7 makes it clear that heirship certificate holder is accountable to all persons having an interest in the property for the acts done by him. Based on the heirship certificate simplicitor the heirship certificate holder cannot be said to have acquired any right, title or interest in the estate of the deceased.

7. The only contention which was raised by the petitioner before me was that Radhabai was not the owner of the property but that the petitioner was the owner. Grant of an heirship certificate to the petitioner would affect its rights in the property and therefore it was a person aggrieved having a right to challenge the impugned order. In view of clauses 7 and 8 of the Regulation and the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Aloysius D'Souza (supra) the contention cannot be accepted. The grant of an heirship certificate to the respondents would not in any way affect the right, title or interest, if there be any, of the petitioner in any of the properties of the deceased Radhabai. The petitioner does not claim to be an heir of Radhabai. Consequently, the present petitioner would not be a person aggrieved by any order of grant or refusal of grant of the heirship certificate. As such, the petitioner cannot be a person aggrieved by the order allowing the amendment and would have no right to contest the said order and challenge it by a writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents themselves had joined the petitioner as a party to the original application heirship certificate and being a party they have a right to challenge the impugned order. In my view, the petitioner was not at all a necessary, not even a proper party to the application made by the respondents for the heirship certificate. 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.