Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a succession matter arising from the death of Mahesh Yuvraj Rupareliya on 25/04/2017. The petitioner, Vijayabai, is the mother of the deceased, and the respondents are the widow (Chaya) and children (Bhagyashree, Ankita, and Hritik) of the deceased. The respondents filed an application on 19/01/2018 before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikhali, under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 for grant of a legal heirship certificate, showing the non-applicant as nil. On 20/02/2018, the petitioner filed an objection seeking dismissal of the application, claiming that she was also a legal heir. The court below, by order dated 11/03/2019, rejected the petitioner's application for being transposed as an objector, holding that the Regulation does not provide for impleadment of objectors and that the proceedings are summary in nature. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The High Court observed that the proceedings under the Regulation are indeed summary, but the court must follow principles of natural justice and give an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties before granting the certificate. The court noted that the petitioner, being the mother of the deceased, is an interested party and her rights would be affected by the grant of the certificate. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the court below to transpose the petitioner as an objector and hear her objections before deciding the succession case. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Legal Heirship Certificate - Right to be Heard - Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 - The petitioner, mother of the deceased, filed an objection in the succession case for grant of legal heirship certificate, but the court below rejected her application for transposition as an objector. The High Court held that the proceedings under the Regulation are summary in nature, but the court must follow principles of natural justice and give an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties before granting the certificate. The impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was allowed to be transposed as an objector. (Paras 5-8) B) Civil Procedure - Summary Proceedings - Natural Justice - Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 - The court below erred in rejecting the petitioner's application solely on the ground that the Regulation does not provide for impleadment of objectors. The High Court clarified that even in summary proceedings, the court has inherent power to hear all persons who may be affected by the order, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure justice. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, mother of the deceased, who was not impleaded as a party in the succession case, has a right to be heard and to be transposed as an objector before the grant of a legal heirship certificate under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11/03/2019 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikhali, in Succession Case No.1 of 2018 is set aside. The petitioner is allowed to be transposed as an objector in the said succession case. The court below is directed to hear the petitioner and decide the succession case afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Right to be heard
- Natural justice
- Legal heirship certificate
- Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827
- Transposition as objector
- Summary proceedings
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
