Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Smt. Vijaya w/o Balasaheb Deshmukh, filed Misc. Application No.86/2012 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 seeking an heirship certificate for her deceased husband Balasaheb Narayan Deshmukh, who died on 28.3.2009. She claimed to be his wife and listed property Gat No.107 situated within Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. No respondent was initially arrayed. The trial court issued public notice, in response to which Smt. Sandhya w/o Ravindra Deshmukh filed an objection claiming that Balasaheb was married to one Rani and had two children, Nikhil and Chhotu, residing in Pune, and that the applicant suppressed these facts. The objector also claimed that Balasaheb's mother was alive and the property was not partitioned. The trial court recorded evidence and granted the heirship certificate to the applicant. The respondent filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the order. The High Court examined the trial court's findings and held that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence, including oral testimony and documents such as voter list and school leaving certificate showing the applicant as wife. The court noted that the respondent's objections regarding suppression of facts were considered but not accepted. The High Court concluded that the trial court's findings were not perverse and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Heirship Certificate - Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 - Grant of Heirship Certificate - The applicant claimed to be the wife of deceased Balasaheb and sought heirship certificate. The respondent objected alleging suppression of earlier marriage and children. The trial court granted the certificate. In revision, the High Court held that the trial court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse, and thus no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Marriage - Proof of Marriage - The applicant produced oral evidence and documents including voter list and school leaving certificate showing her as wife. The trial court accepted this evidence. The High Court found no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. (Paras 4-6) C) Jurisdiction - Revisional Powers - Scope of Revision - The revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or without jurisdiction. The High Court held that the trial court's decision was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any illegality. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's grant of heirship certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 was perverse or suffered from any jurisdictional error warranting interference in revision.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the trial court's order granting the heirship certificate to the applicant. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Heirship certificate
- Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827
- Perversity of findings
- Suppression of facts
- Marriage proof
- Revisional jurisdiction
