Dasopant Digamberrao Goswami ... vs Mangalbai Vilas Goswami And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3744 Bom

                                          1                      CRA-90-18

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 90 OF 2018

Dasopant Digamberrao Goswami Died by LRs ...Applicants

                       Versus

Mangalbai Vilas Goswami and Anr.                                   ...Respondents
                         .......
Mr. Vivek V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for Applicants
Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondents No. 1
and 2
                         .......


                        CORAM         :         R. G. AVACHAT, J.
                        DATE          :         01-03-2021.



ORDER :

01. The challenge in this Revision Application is to

the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.2018 passed by learned

District Judge-4, Beed in Regular Civil Appeal No.

69/2009. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the appeal

has been allowed and the Order rejecting the Miscellaneous

Civil Application No. 70/2000 was set aside. The

application moved for grant of heirship certificate came

to be allowed.

02. Respondents claimed to be class I heirs of

deceased Vilas Goswami, who died on 21.4.2000. The

respondents, therefore, preferred application, being

2 CRA-90-18

M.C.A. No. 70/2000, for grant of heirship certificate.

Dasopant Digamberrao Goswami (deceased) appeared in the

said proceedings and contested the same. He claimed to be

real brother of deceased Vilas. He denied the respondents

(applicants) to be class I heirs of the deceased Vilas.

Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai, rejected

the said application. The respondents, therefore,

preferred the appeal, R.C.A. No. 69/2009. The appeal came

to be allowed. The respondents have been recognized as

legal heirs of deceased Vilas Goswami. Heirship

certificate was directed to be issued in their favour.

03. This revision application has been filed by

legal representatives of Dasopant Goswami, who had

appeared in the proceedings (M.C.A. 70/2000) and contested

the same.

04. Shri V.V.Bhavthankar, learned Counsel would

submit that Shri Dasopant passed away during pendency of

Regular Civil Appeal 69/2009. Without bringing on record

legal representatives of Dasopant, the appeal came to be

decided. The decision in appeal is, therefore, non est.

05. Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, learned Counsel for the

3 CRA-90-18

respondents would, on the other hand, submit that the

legal representatives of Dasopant were parties to the

appeal. On his request Record and Proceedings of the

Civil Appeal was called for. It is found that the legal

representatives of Dasopant were brought on record of the

memorandum of appeal. Perusal of the impugned judgment

passed in the said appeal indicates that legal

representatives of deceased Dasopant contested the appeal.

It, therefore, can not be said that the judgment in the

appeal has been passed against a dead person and is,

therefore, a nullity.

06. I have perused the impugned Judgment. Before

the Appellate Court, there was clinching and reliable

evidence to suggest that the respondents herein are class

I heirs of deceased Vilas Goswami. The respondent No. 1

is the widow of Vilas, while respondent No. 2 Yogesh is

their son. The appellate Court has, therefore, rightly

directed to issue heirship certificate in their favour.

07. The learned Counsel for the revision applicant

would submit that on the basis of heirship certificate,

the respondents have got mutated their names in

municipal / city survey record of certain house

4 CRA-90-18

properties. According to him, the said properties belong

to a public charitable trust. The respondents can not get

any right, title and interest in any immovable property

only on the basis of heirship certificate.

08. The learned Counsel for the respondents does not

dispute legal position that grant of heirship certificate

does not establish a right of the party in property of the

deceased by itself. The Division Bench of this Court in

case of Aloysius Manuel Dsouza and Ors V/s Mary Kamala

William Manuel Dsouza2, 2006(6) Bom. C.R. 56(O.S.) 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 the 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.

Moreover, this Court, vide its order dated

21.8.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 2177 of 2014, has

5 CRA-90-18

observed that :

The position of law that emerges from the above provisions is that, an heirship certificate does not bestow the status of an heir upon a person. Grant of such a certificate is only a formal recognition of his existing status as an heir. An heir or executor or legal administrator, by his such status, can assume management of the property of the deceased even without a formal recognition by the Court. A person may obtain heirship certificate in any of the three situations i.e. (i) if he so desires (ii) where his right as an heir is disputed, and (iii) in order to give confidence to the persons in possession of or indebted to the estate and to deal with them. Thus grant of heirship certificate is solely, for the convenience of the heir. Beyond that it is of no significance. The rules also indicate 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. In that case, the Court shall forthwith receive such proof as may be offered of the right of the person making the claim, and if satisfied shall grant a certificate in the prescribed form declaring him the recognized heir of the deceased. The scope of such enquiry is limited to ascertain the claim of heirship of the applicant. The petitioner's claim and the impugned order are required to be appreciated against the above legal position.

6 CRA-90-18

09. The respondents being class I heirs of deceased

Vilas Goswami, have rightly been granted heirship

certificate in recognition of their relationship with the

deceased. No interference with the impugned judgment and

order is, therefore, called for.

10. Needless to mention that the grant of heirship

certificate in the name of respondents per se would not

establish their right in any property of the deceased.

11. The application fails. The same is, therefore,

dismissed.

[R.G.AVACHAT] JUDGE Dahibhate/-