3.Mr. Vaze for the revocation Petitioners submits that the
Petitioners have what he calls a “preferrable title” to certain
tenancy premises. According to him, under Section 7 of Bombay
Regulation VIII of 1827, this is sufficient reason for revocation.
Indeed, it is not. Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII makes it
clear that a Heirship Certificate is not necessary but is issued only
to enable third parties to feel “safer” when they are dealing with
persons who claim to represent the estate of the deceased. Section 7
makes it clear that the issue of a Heirship Certificate does not
confer any right to property. It does not finally determine or confer
rights in person and only indicates the person/s who for the time
being are in legal management of the deceased’s estate. Clearly, the
Heirship Certificate does not deal with any question as to the title
of any particular property. It is for the heirs to take such civil
proceedings as they may be advised against each other to establish
that one or more of them have a preferential right to any particular
property, tenanted or otherwise. All rights in that respect are
necessarily kept open and remain unaffected by the grant of a
Heirship Certificate.
