The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has reiterated an earlier decision of the Bombay High Court, wherein it was held that “it is mandatory for the Court to issue an heirship certificate, if after publication of citation, no objector comes forward within one month from the date of publication.”
The Single Bench of the Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by Sushila Gandecha Widow of Ramniklal, the said Petitioner i.e. Sushila Gandecha had approached the High Court challenging the Order of a Lower Court suspending the grant of Heirship Certificate till conclusion of a Civil Suit between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 i.e Madhulata Pradumna Gambhir, the said Respondent No.1 was an objector to the grant of the Heirship Certificate.
The Court held that “Grant of heirship certificate would not ipso facto lead to recognition or crystallization of any rights of the petitioner in the house in question. At best, it would assist the petitioner in claiming that she was entitled to the rights that the deceased Ramniklal Gandecha was entitled, as his only heir.”
The Court further held that contention of Respondent No.1 is misconceived and the lower court had erred in suspending heirship proceedings before it on grounds that a suit was pending before another Court.
Grant of Heirship Certificate therefore implies that a person is a recognised legal heir of the deceased, it is issued solely for the convenience of the heir, beyond that it is of no significance. – Ganapati Vinayak Achwal [2015 (2) ALL MR 285 ]
Read the Full Judgment here – Sushilaben Ramniklal Vs. Madhulata Gambhir
Refer – Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827
Also Read – Important Sections of Employees Compensation Act
Leave a Reply