Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Baban Ramchandra Shukla, Nalini Vinayakrao Joshi, and Malti Jagannathrao Tembhurne, filed a Civil Revision Application before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in M.J.C. No.279/2011. The trial court had rejected their application for grant of an heirship certificate under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. The background of the case involves property originally owned by Eknath Ganesh Kasture, who died in 1958. His widow Janabai died in 1981, leaving behind sons Arvind and Baban, and daughters Nanibai and Malti. The applicants claimed that Nanibai executed a registered Will on 01.10.2003 (registered on 15.10.2003) bequeathing her property and share in favour of her son, applicant No.1 Baban. Based on this Will, the applicants sought an heirship certificate to establish their ownership of the property left by Eknath. The respondents, Parag Arvind Shukla and Sharad Arvind Shukla, opposed the application. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the Will was not proved in accordance with law. The High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, examined whether the trial court had committed any jurisdictional error. The Court noted that the scope of revision is limited and interference is warranted only if the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction, or has acted illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court found that the trial court's order was neither perverse nor illegal, and that the Will had not been proved as required. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Heirship Certificate - Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 - Proof of Will - The applicants sought heirship certificate based on a registered Will executed by Nanibai in favour of applicant No.1. The trial court rejected the application holding that the Will was not proved as required by law. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Revision - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 115 CPC - Scope - The revisional court can interfere only if the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, or has failed to exercise jurisdiction, or has acted illegally or with material irregularity. The High Court found no such error in the trial court's order. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for grant of heirship certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 on the ground that the Will relied upon by the applicants was not proved in accordance with law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application for heirship certificate. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Heirship certificate
- Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827
- Will
- Proof of Will
- Civil Revision
- Revisional jurisdiction
