Dismissed¶17

Shubhlaxmi Wd/O. Shrawan Pujari v. Dinesh Laxman Chunarkar and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jan 2025WP/510/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Heirship certificate — Bombay Regulation Act, 1827 — intervention/impleadment of objecting parties — necessary party — dispute over legal heirship — Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction — perversity standard — writ petition dismissed — Nagpur Bench — M.J.C. No. 11/2024 — Group Grampanchayat, Sasavane (2010 SCC OnLine Bom 986) distinguished — sister-in-law as Class II legal heir — renunciation theory (Shishya of Swami Sadanand / Swami Ramanand Bhagwan) — power of attorney dealings with deceased's properties not examined.

What did the court decide?

In view of the serious contest to the petitioner's claim of being the legal heir of the deceased, the presence of the respondents in the heirship certificate proceedings was rightly found necessary by the trial Court. ¶16

Shubhlaxmi Wd/O. Shrawan Pujari vs Dinesh Laxman… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order permitting the respondents to intervene in the heirship certificate proceedings is perverse and calls for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶8

Court's answer

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court's approach in permitting the respondents to intervene is not perverse; the High Court declines to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶16

Key takeaways

The coordinate-bench decision in Group Grampanchayat, Sasavane (2010 SCC OnLine Bom 986), relied upon by the petitioner, is distinguishable: there the intervenor (Grampanchayat) sought intervention on the footing that it had purchased the property and the applicant had not claimed heirship, whereas here the respondents themselves dispute that the petitioner is a legal heir at all, alleging the deceased had renounced the world and become a Shishya of Swami Sadanand, later known as Swami Ramanand Bhagwan.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Anil L. Pansare, J.): Writ petition dismissed. Challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to order dated 16.11.2024 of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalmeshwar in M.J.C. No. 11/2024, permitting respondents to intervene in proceedings for an heirship certificate under the Bombay Regulation Act, 1827 in respect of deceased Krishnakumar Chinteshwarpant Pujari (expired 18.07.2021). Petitioner claimed to be the deceased's sister-in-law and a Class II legal heir; respondents disputed her heirship altogether, alleging the deceased had renounced the world at age five, become a Shishya of Swami Sadanand and was later known as Swami Ramanand Bhagwan. The coordinate-bench ruling in Group Grampanchayat, Sasavane Vs. Sunanda Shamrao Bandishti, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 986, relied on by the petitioner, was distinguished: there the intervenor claimed to have purchased the property and the applicant had not claimed heirship, whereas here the respondents themselves deny the petitioner's heirship. Given the serious contest, presence of the respondents was held necessary; the trial Court's approach was not perverse; interference declined. Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

1 929-510-25.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 510/2025 Shubhlaxmi Wd/o Shrawan Pujari Vs. Dinesh Laxman Chunarkar & Another

¶4

Office	Notes,	Office
Memoranda	of	Coram,
Appearances,	Court's	orders or
directions	and	Registrar's
orders

¶5

Mr. S.V. Kaplay, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. Akhtar Ansari, Advocate for Respondents

¶6

CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE, J.

¶7

DATED : 24^th JUNE, 2025

¶8

The challenge is to the order dated 16.11.2024, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalmeshwar in M.J.C. No. 11/2024. The petitioner filed application under the provisions of the Bombay Regulation Act, 1827, for heirship certificate, claiming herself to be the legal heir of deceased Krishnakumar Chinteshwarpant Pujari, who expired on 18.07.2021. The respondents appeared in the matter and raised objection stating therein that the petitioner is not legal heir of deceased Krishnakumar Chinteshwarpant Pujari. According to the respondents, deceased Krishnakumar Chinteshwarpant Pujari had renounced this world when he was five years old. The necessary details after his renouncing have been put-forth.

¶9

It is worth mentioning here that the petitioner claimed herself to be sister-in-law of deceased Krishnakumar Chinteshwarpant Pujari.

¶10

There are other pleas raised by the parties, which includes respondents making an attempt to sell the

¶11

2 929-510-25.odt

¶12

immovable properties belonging to the deceased and/or they having purchased some of the properties from the deceased Krishnakumar Chinteshwarpant Pujari through power of attorney (respondent No.2). I need not go into the said aspect. The fact remains that the respondents have come up with a case that the petitioner is not the legal heir of deceased Krishnakumar Chinteshwarpant Pujari.

¶13

Thus, there is a claim and counter claim and in context there-with, the Court below thought it proper to permit the respondents to intervene in the matter. I do not find any perversity in such approach.

¶14

The counsel for the petitioner has however relied upon the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Group Grampanchayat, Sasavane Vs. Sunanda Shamrao Bandishti and others, 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 986 , wherein the Court held that the petitioner therein having not claimed itself to be heir of deceased, it was not necessary party to the proceedings for legal heirship. In the said case, the Grampanchayat has sought to intervene on the ground that it has purchased the property and in that context, the Court held that it was not party necessary to the proceedings. As against, in the present case, the respondents have come up with a case that the petitioner is not at all legal heir of deceased and in support have putforth the theory that the deceased had renounced this world and taken as Shishya of Swami Sadanand and lateron known as Swami Ramanand Bhagwan. That apart, the petitioner has claimed herself to be Class II legal heir being sister-in-law of the deceased.

¶15

3 929-510-25.odt

¶16

Considering the peculiar facts where there appears serious contest to the petitioner claiming herself to be the legal heir, presence of the respondents is found necessary by the trial Court. Such approach cannot be said to be perverse approach and, therefore, I decline to interfere in the impugned order under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶18

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)

¶19

MP Deshpande

¶20

Signed by: Mr. M.P. Deshpande Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/06/2025 10:41:43

Shubhlaxmi Wd/O. Shrawan Pujari v. Dinesh Laxman Chunarkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubhlaxmi Wd/O. Shrawan Pujari v. Dinesh Laxman Chunarkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vilas S/O. Jagobaji Bomanwar and Others Vs Nirmala W/O. Manoharrao Shatalwar (Dead) Thr. Lrs.

Dnyaneshwar S/O Laxmanrao Amzhare Vs State of Maha., Thr. Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition), Amravati and Others

Mahadeo S/O Bhagawan Gandhare vs Raju S/O Bhaiyaji Zade and Others

Smt. Vinita W/O Nivrutti Gadikar Vs Mahadeorao S/O Govindrao Sonkusare and Others

Sadulla Khan Abdulla Khan Vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Mohd Sajid @ Shahjad Mohd. Haroon vs Anjuman Tarakki a Urdu, Digras, Thr. President, Mohd. Rafique Abdul Wahab and Others