Allowed

Manjula Vasant Gohil v. Vasant Danji Gohil (Deceased)

Bombay HC13 Oct 2016MPT/126/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted a Legal Heirship Certificate under State Regulation to the petitioner and specific relatives of the deceased to facilitate compassionate employment and claim dues, rejecting objections that the employment would bar future claims by minor children.

What did the court decide?

Legal Heirship Certificate granted in favor of Bena Danji Gohil, Manjula Vasant Gohil, Rishi Vasant Gohil, Prabhat Vasant Gohil and Maghana Vasant Gohil.

Manjula Vasant Gohil Vs Vasant Danji Gohil… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

32-MPTL1386-15.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 1386 OF 2015

¶4

Manjula Vasant Gohil…Petitioner
And
Vasant Danji Gohil…Deceased

¶5

Mr. Shobhana Waghmare, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjiv P., i/b Mr. Prakash J. Salsingikar, for mother of the
deceased.

¶6

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 13th October 2016

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.The Petitioner seeks a Legal Heirship Certificate under
Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in respect of one
Vasant Danji Gohil, who is said to have died intestate in Mumbai,
where he was ordinarily resident, on 4th February 2014. A copy of
his death certificate is annexed.

¶9

2.The deceased was survived by his mother, widow, one son
two sons and a daughter. Their names are mentioned in the
tabulation below paragraph 4 of the petition.

¶10

3. The Legal Heirship Certificate is required for submission to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Lokmanya Tilak

¶11

Page 1 of 3
13th October 2016

¶12

32-MPTL1386-15.DOC

¶13

Municipal Hospital, Sion, Mumbai 400 022 for the post of sweeper
on compassionate grounds. The Legal Heirship Certificate is also
required for the deceased’s dues such as Provident Fund etc.

¶14

4.The Petitioner’s mother-in-law instructs her Advocate to
make an exceedingly peculiar submission, viz., that the Petitioner
should not seek any employment on the compassionate ground
because the policy is such that if she does so and does get such
employment, her sons when they attain majority, will not be entitled
to seek employment on this ground.

¶15

5.This even does not stand to reason. It assumes far too much,
beginning with the assumption that these minor children, today
between the ages of 10 and 12, will even want to apply for
employment at the MCGM Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Hospital
where the Petitioner worked, or that they will, on production of an
Heirship Certificate, automatically be given that employment. None
of this is reason to demand that the Petitioner be made to sit idle and
without employment even if she is able to get employment on some
priority basis. It is true that the two minor sons are with the
Petitioner’s mother-in-law (the daughter is with the Petitioner), but
I imagine that it is difficult enough for a single woman to provide for
three children in a city like this without being told that she should
not avail of an employment opportunity when one presents itself
and should, instead, on the diktat of her mother-in-law, be without a
source of income. The objection and opposition are rejected.

¶16

Page 2 of 3
13th October 2016

¶17

32-MPTL1386-15.DOC

¶18

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.

¶19

7.The petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in
favour of the persons mentioned in the table below paragraph 4,
namely, Bena Danji Gohil, Manjula Vasant Gohil, Rishi Vasant
Gohil, Prabhat Vasant Gohil and Maghana Vasant Gohil.

¶20

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

¶21

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶22

Page 3 of 3
13th October 2016

Manjula Vasant Gohil v. Vasant Danji Gohil (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula Vasant Gohil v. Vasant Danji Gohil (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

Manoj Navinchandra Shah Vs Usha B. Shah

Raj Enterprises Vs Tele-Video Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Others

Mrs. Sulekha Surendra Avasare Vs Mr. Radhakishore Madhusudan Wagh

Vijayshree a. Mhatre Vs Yashoda Dina Patil and 4 Ors. and Hemant Harish Devadiga and Anr. (Respondents).

Kewal Kartarnath Ahuja Vs Meena Randhawa (Caveator)

Supriya Shashikant Kambli Vs Shashikant Mukund Kambli