Allowed

Ashni Rahul Dwarkadas v. Ashok Gopaldas Sampat (Deceased)

Bombay HC16 Sept 2016MPT/120/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the miscellaneous petition seeking an heirship certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, disposing of the matter in favor of the petitioner as the sole heir of the intestate deceased, Ashok Gopaldas Sampat, upon receipt of consents from other heirs and satisfaction that debts were discharged.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of an Heirship Certificate declaring the petitioner the sole beneficiary and sole heir of the deceased's estate, with no proclamation required.

Ashni Rahul Dwarkadas Vs Ashok Gopaldas Sampat (Deceased) — Partition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

907-MPTL-1884-2016.DOC

¶2

JSN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO.1884 OF 2016

¶4

Ashni Rahul Dwarkadas… Petitioner
And
Ashok Gopaldas Sampat…Deceased

¶5

Mr. Cyrus Ardeshir, Counsel, with Rahul Dwarkadas, Neveille Mukerji, i/b Veritas Legal for the Petitioner.

¶6

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 16th September 2016.

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.Accepted. The Petitioner is the daughter of the deceased. He
was survived by the Petitioner (his daughter), a son, and his mother.
The deceased’s son and mother have filed affidavits of consent.
Hence, I dispense with the need for issue of a proclamation.
Miscellaneous Petition is made returnable forthwith and 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 Ashok
Gopaldas Sampat, who is said to have died intestate in Mumbai,
where he was ordinarily resident, on 23rd April 2015. A copy of his
death certificate is annexed.

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

16th September 2016

¶12

907-MPTL-1884-2016.DOC

¶13

3.The deceased was survived by his married daughter, viz., the
Petitioner; his mother; and his son. Their names are mentioned in
the tabulation below paragraph 5 of the petition. The deceased left
no Will.

¶14

4.At the time of his death, the deceased held various
investments in the nature of shares and mutual funds. He had also
created securities in respect of some of his assets to a bank or banks.
It is stated in paragraph 9 that the debts of the estate have been paid
by the Petitioner and her husband. The Petitioner and her husband
have in fact discharged the entirety of the deceased’s debts.

¶15

5.The Affidavits of Petitioner’s mother and brother, annexed at
pages 12 and 15 respectively to the Petition, clearly state that they
have no objection to Petitioner being declared the sole beneficiary
and sole heir of the deceased and to the grant of an heirship
certificate.

¶16

6.No other Petition for a heirship certificate, succession
certificate, probate or letters of administration with or without will
annexed has been filed. There is no impediment to the grant of
relief.

¶17

7.The petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a),
which reads as under:

¶18

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an Heirship Certificate under the provisions of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, in

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

16th September 2016

¶21

907-MPTL-1884-2016.DOC

¶22

terms of what is stated hereinabove certifying
that the Petitioner is the sole beneficiary and
solely entitled to the estate, if any, of the
deceased, Ashok Gopaldas Sampat.”

¶23

8. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶24

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶25

Page 3 of 3
16th September 2016

Ashni Rahul Dwarkadas v. Ashok Gopaldas Sampat (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashni Rahul Dwarkadas v. Ashok Gopaldas Sampat (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

Hansa Ramesh Babaria Vs Utkarsh Ramesh Babria

Leena Peter Louis Vs Leyanna Peter Louis

Vasant Vasu Bangera Vs Vasu Kukra Bangera

The Foundry Visionmongers Ltd. Vs Parish Tekriwal and 2 Ors.

Udayraj Chandanmal Vs Ghisulal Punamchandji Munot and 10 Ors.

Yogesh Jayantilal Khandhar Vs Jayantilal Dhanjibhai Khandhar