Allowed

Sarubai Suhas Kamble v. Suhas shrikant kamble (Deceased)

Bombay HC10 Dec 2024MPT/521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed for an heirship certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 for the estate of their deceased husband/father/son. The court examined the claim that the deceased died intestate with no will found. Leave to amend was granted.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Proclamation dispensed with. Grant expedited subject to amendment.

Sarubai Suhas Kamble vs Suhas shrikant kamble… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

30-MPT-521-2024.DOC

¶2

Arun Sankpal

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶4

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 521 OF 2024

¶5

Sarubai Suhas Kamble & Ors ...Petitioners Suhas Shrimant Kamble …Deceased

¶6

Mr. Badal B. Gawade, for the Petitioners.

¶7

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 10 DECEMBER 2024

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶10

The learned Counsel for the Petition seeks leave to amend the Petition. Leave granted. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week. Re-verification dispensed with.

¶11

ARUN

¶12

RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶13

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2024.12.11 11:10:54 +0530

¶14

This petition is filed for grant of heirship certificate under Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827.

¶15

Suhas Shrimant Kamble (deceased) was the husband of Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and son of Petitioner No.4. The deceased passed away on 10^th February 2024. At the time of his death, the deceased had a fixed place of abode at Room No. 217, Building No.2, Shivdarshan CHS, Sariput Nagar, J V Link Road, Near Seepz Quarters, Andheri (East), Chakala MIDC, Mumbai 400 093.

¶16

The Petitioner avers that the deceased died intestate and

¶17

1/2

¶18

30-MPT-521-2024.DOC

¶19

despite diligent search, no testamentary writing or Will has been found. The deceased had left behind the Petitioners as the surviving Class-I legal heirs. There is no other legal heir. Heirship certificate is required to seek appointment on compassionate ground as the deceased was working with Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai.

¶20

The documents annexed to the Petition lend support to the claim of the Petitioners. The Petitioners appear to be the only surviving Class-I legal heirs of the deceased. Hence I do not find any impediment in granting Heirship Certificate.

¶21

Hence the following order:

¶22

(i) The Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶23

(ii) Proclamation dispensed with.

¶24

(iii) Grant expedited.

¶25

(iv) Grant be issued only after the Petitioner carries out the amendment in the Petition in terms of this order.

¶26

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶27

2/2

Sarubai Suhas Kamble v. Suhas shrikant kamble (Deceased)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarubai Suhas Kamble v. Suhas shrikant kamble (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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sneha Subhash Karandikar vs Subhash Ganesh Karandikar (Deceased)

Jyoti Prakash Parab vs Prakash Arjun Parab (Deceased)

Bhakti Vijay Kandalgaonkar vs Vijay Mahadeo Kandalgaonkar (Decased)

Ruchika Bhatnagar Alias Ruchika Bharat Bhatnagar vs Asha Bhatnagar Alias Asha Bharat Bhatnagar (Deceased)

Bela Satish Patki vs Satish Laxman Patki alias Satish Patki alias S L Patki (Deceased)

Harminder Kaur W/O Avtar Singh Rangwala vs Avtar Singh Bhagwan Singh Aka Avtar Singh Bhagwan Singh Rangwala (Deceased)