Allowed

Aspi Darabsha Patel v. Darabsha Nanabhai Patel (Deceased)

Bombay HC27 Sept 2016MPT/101/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought an heirship certificate under Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in respect of an intestate Parsi deceased. Given the consent of all other heirs and the absence of other petitions, the High Court dispensed with the proclamation and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition is made returnable forthwith and is taken up for hearing and final disposal; granted the heirship certificate as prayed.

Aspi Darabsha Patel Vs Darabsha Nanabhai Patel… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

17-MPT-101-2016.DOC

¶2

VIKRANT

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 101 OF 2016

¶4

Aspi Darabsha Patel…Petitioner
And
Darabsha Nanabhai Patel…Deceased

¶5

Mr. Balu L. Mangale, for the Petitioner.

¶6

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 27th September 2016

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.Accepted. All the other heirs having consented, the
proclamation is dispensed with. The Petition is made returnable
forthwith and is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

¶9

2.The Petitioner seeks an Heirship Certificate under Section 2
of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in respect of one Darabsha
Nanabhai Patel, who died intestate in Mumbai, where he was
ordinarily resident, on 28th March 2010. The deceased was a Parsi.
A copy of his death certificate is annexed.

¶10

3.The deceased’s parents died before him a long time earlier.
His wife died intestate on 12th January 2002. A copy of her death
certificate is annexed. Their elder daughter Roshan died intestate on

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

27th September 2016

¶13

17-MPT-101-2016.DOC

¶14

4th January 2016. Her death certificate copy is also annexed. She
was survived by her own husband, her only legal heir. Thus, the
heirs of the deceased are the ones whose names are shown in the
table below paragraph 7 of the Petition. All these heirs have filed a
joint consent Affidavit which is at page 23 of this Petition.

¶15

4. The Petitioner is the younger son of the deceased.

¶16

5.The Petitioner requests the Heirship Certificate for an
application to be made to the Revenue Authorities in respect of the
properties listed in the schedule to the present Petition.

¶17

6.There is no other petition for probate, Letters of
Administration with or without will annexed or for an Heirship
Certificate. The other heirs having consented, there is no
impediment to the grant of the relief.

¶18

7.The Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b)
which reads:

¶19

“(b)That a Legal Heirship Certificate certifying that the
Petitioner along with the heirs mentioned hereinabove in
the table set out in paragraph 7 are the only heirs and
legal representatives of the said Deceased under the
provisions of the Bombay Regulation Act VIII of 1827.”

¶20

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶21

Page 2 of 2
27th September 2016

Aspi Darabsha Patel v. Darabsha Nanabhai Patel (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aspi Darabsha Patel v. Darabsha Nanabhai Patel (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Gopinath Khot and Anr. Vs Prafulla Kamlakar Gavande and Anr.

Amar Brijkishore Gupta Vs Ashok Gupta

Kalpesh Yogesh Upadhyay Vs Chitra Anil Upadhya (Caveator)

Ronald J. Fernandes Vs Rita Pinto

Aruna Ravindra Bapat Vs Sudhir Sriniwas Joshi

Shaheeda Pravin Vs Kanchan Manishlala and Anr.