Dismissed¶27

Rekha Abhishek Singh v. Amrita Ravindrapratap Singh

Bombay HC12 Sept 2025MPT/280/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revocation of Legal Heirship Certificate; grant determines heirs only, not title or entitlement; Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction; petitioner is wife of deceased's brother and not a legal heir; remedy is declaration by Civil Court of original jurisdiction; execution of consent terms as proper remedy; Suit No. 64/2011 Bombay High Court; deceased Abhijit Ramprakash Singh (expired 29.04.2023); Milind N. Jadhav, J.; Misc. Petition No. 280 of 2025; petition dismissed with contentions left open.

What did the court decide?

None; all contentions of the Petitioner expressly left open to approach the appropriate Civil Court for agitating her substantial rights in respect of the said immovable properties, and the Petition is dismissed. ¶27

Rekha Abhishek Singh vs Amrita Ravindrapratap Singh — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the Legal Heirship Certificate / Grant issued in favour of the Respondent should be revoked, the Petitioner alleging it was obtained without disclosure of the legal heirs of the deceased's brother and relying upon the consent terms in Suit No. 64/2011. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

It is an admitted position that the Petitioner is not the legal heir of the deceased; she is the wife of his deceased brother.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Parties would be governed by their substantive rights in the immovable properties belonging to the deceased either as agreed by them or by operation of law.

¶23

Key takeaways

Grant of the Legal Heirship Certificate in favour of the Respondent in no manner determines that she has been conferred title to the said immovable properties of the deceased.ratio¶23
For establishing title, the parties will have to approach the Civil Court having original jurisdiction and obtain an appropriate declaration.ratio¶23
If it is the Petitioner's contention that the Consent Terms filed in Civil Suit No. 64 of 2011 in this Court govern the rights of the parties, the aggrieved party may approach the appropriate Court for execution of the said Consent Terms; for that purpose revocation of the Grant is not the solution.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction (Milind N. Jadhav, J.) dismissed Misc. Petition No. 280 of 2025 in which the Petitioner — wife of the deceased's brother and admittedly not a legal heir of the deceased Abhijit Ramprakash Singh (expired 29.04.2023) — sought revocation of the Legal Heirship Certificate/Grant issued in favour of the Respondent. Held: (i) by issuing a Legal Heirship Certificate all the Court has done is determine the heirs of the deceased, and such certificate 'is not reflective of title and entitlement' of the heirs stated in the Grant to the immovable properties of the deceased; (ii) for establishing title the parties must approach the Civil Court having original jurisdiction and obtain an appropriate declaration; (iii) if the consent terms in Civil Suit No. 64 of 2011 govern the parties' rights, the remedy is execution of those terms, for which revocation of the Grant 'is not the solution'. All contentions of the Petitioner expressly left open; Petition dismissed.

¶1

7(i). MPT-280-25.docx

¶2

Amberkar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶5

MISC. PETITION NO. 280 OF 2025

¶6

Rekha Abhishek Singh .. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Amrita Ravindrapratap Singh

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

Mr. Rupesh R. Lanjekar, Advocate for Petitioner

¶11

Mr. Anil D. Yadav, Advocate for Respondent

¶12

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 12, 2025

¶13

P. C.:

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Lanjekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for Respondent.

¶15

2. Petition is filed for seeking revocation of grant issued in favour of Respondent. Admittedly Petitioner is sister-in-law of deceased Abhijit Ramprakash Singh who expired on 29.04.2023. Contention of Petitioner is that on the basis of Legal Heirship Certificate / Grant issued by Court, Respondent is claiming right, title and entitlement in subject properties which were mentioned in paragraph Nos. 1 to 9 of the Grant Application which is appended at page Nos. 382-390 of the present Petition. He would submit that it was stated in the original Petition that Legal Heirship Certificate is required to be issued by Court to enable the Petitioner therein to seek right, title and entitlement in respect of the subject immovable properties. Next he

¶16

Corrected / Modified order as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 16.09.2025. 1 of 4

¶17

7(i). MPT-280-25.docx

¶18

would submit that if such course of action is allowed to be adopted by the Respondent, then it would be detrimental to the share of present Petitioner. He would submit that when the original Petition was filed, requisition / objection was raised by Office requiring the Respondent to disclose the details of legal heirs of the brother of deceased whose name was Abhishek Ramprakash Singh and Petitioner is the wife of Abhishek Ramprakash Singh. Incidentally Abhishek R. Singh is also deceased. Mr. Lanjekar would therefore submit that without compliance and without disclosure of the family tree and names of legal heirs of deceased brother, the Grant was effected. He would submit that there is prior litigation between parties which is also going to the root of the matter to determine the shares between them. He has referred to the Suit nomenclatured as Suit No. 64/2011 filed in this Court which was disposed of by filing consent terms. Copy of the consent terms is appended to the Petition. He would contend that in paragraph No. 7 of the consent terms, Respondent who has obtained Legal Heirship Certificate has relinquished her rights by filing a release deed which finds mention therein. He would therefore submit that Respondent would not be entitled to any right, title and interest in the subject properties. Hence he would persuade the Court to revoke the Grant issued in favour of the Respondent.

¶19

Corrected / Modified order as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 16.09.2025. 2 of 4

¶20

7(i). MPT-280-25.docx

¶21

3. Per contra Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for Respondent at the outset would submit that Petitioner is not a legal heir of the deceased. He would concede and admit that she is the wife of the brother of the deceased. He would submit that grant of Legal Heirship Certificate is not a reflection of this Court determining right, title and entitlement of the parties in the subject immovable properties. Therefore he would persuade the Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶22

4. I have heard both the learned Advocates at the bar and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

¶23

5. It is an admitted position that Petitioner before me is not the legal heir of the deceased. She is the wife of his deceased brother. Be that as it may, parties would be governed by their substantive rights in the immovable properties belonging to the deceased either as agreed by them or by operation of law. Grant of Legal Heirship Certificate in favour of Respondent in no manner determines that she has been conferred title to the said immovable properties. For establishing title, parties will have to approach the Civil Court having original jurisdiction and obtain appropriate declaration. If it is the contention of Petitioner that Consent Terms filed in Civil Suit No. 64 of 2011 in this Court govern the rights of the parties, the aggrieved party may approach the appropriate Court for execution of the said Consent Terms. For that purpose revocation of Grant is not the solution. By

¶24

Corrected / Modified order as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 16.09.2025. 3 of 4

¶25

7(i). MPT-280-25.docx

¶26

virtue of issuing Legal Heirship Certificate, all that Court has done is determined the heirs of the deceased only and it needs to be clarified time and again that grant of Legal Heirship Certificate is not reflective of title and entitlement of the leal heirs stated in the Grant to the immovable properties of the deceased.

¶27

6. In view of the above observations and findings, leaving all contentions of the Petitioner expressly open to approach the appropriate Civil Court for agitating her rights rather her substantial rights in respect of the said immovable properties, the Petition is dismissed.

¶28

Amberkar

¶29

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶30

Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRAMOHANAMBERKAR MOHANAMBERKARDate:2025.09.16
14:44:57
+0530

¶31

Corrected / Modified order as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 16.09.2025. 4 of 4

Rekha Abhishek Singh v. Amrita Ravindrapratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Abhishek Singh v. Amrita Ravindrapratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunil (Bhau) Chandrakant Bhusara vs Harishchandra Sakharam Bhoye

Sunil Chandrakant Bhusara vs Harishchandra Sakharam Bhoye

Sunil Chandrakant Bhusara vs Harishchandra Sakharam Bhoye

Lokesh Harish Chandwani vs Rachana Harish Chandwani

Victoria Fernandes @ Rodrigues vs Anthony Francis Misquitta (Deceased)

Shirin Aliasgar Shaikh vs Yusufali Sulemanji Attarwala (Deceased)