Allowed¶18

Prasad Sudhir Mohite v. Sudhir Purushottam Mohite

Bombay HC27 Mar 2026MPT/276/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirship certificate; Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827; intestate succession; sole surviving heir; transfer of share certificate; Flat no. 104, Radha Krishna Radha Residency CHS, Siddharth Nagar, Borivali (East), Greater Mumbai-400066; Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction; Miscellaneous Petition; proclamation dispensed with; Abhay Ahuja, J.; Prasad Sudhir Mohite; Sudhir Purushottam Mohite.

What did the court decide?

Legal Heirship Certificate granted to the Petitioner in terms of prayer clause (a), having effect throughout the State of Maharashtra under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827; proclamation dispensed with; Petition allowed and disposed. ¶18

Prasad Sudhir Mohite vs Sudhir Purushottam Mohite — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

MPT 276-26.doc

¶2

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

¶3

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 276 OF 2026

¶4

Prasad Sudhir Mohite ...Petitioner Sudhir Purushottam Mohite …Deceased

¶5

Mr. Vedant Tiwari i/b Mr. Rohit D. Joshi for the Petitioner.

¶6

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 12^th JUNE, 2026

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

This Petition seeks issuance of legal heirship certificate under the provisions of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 to the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel appears for the Petitioner and submits that the Petitioner is the sole surviving heir of his parents: where the mother has pre-deceased the father and the parents of the deceased father have also pre-deceased him.

¶10

Mr. Tiwari draws this Court’s attention to the death certificates of the Petitioner’s parents annexed to the Petition.

¶11

Mr. Tiwari submits that the Petitioner's deceased father died instate and was a permanent resident of Mumbai at the time of his death at Flat no. 104, Radha Krishna Radha Residency CHS, Siddharth Nagar, Borivali (East), Greater Mumbai-400066 (the “said flat”). That

¶12

Nikita Gadgil 1/2

¶13

MPT 276-26.doc

¶14

the Petitioner is the only legal heir and legal representative of the deceased father.

¶15

It is submitted that the heirship certificate is required for the transfer of the share certificate in respect of the said flat in the name of the Petitioner.

¶16

Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the material placed on record, with his assistance, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (a), which reads thus:-

¶17

“a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant/issue a “Legal Heirship Certificate” to the Petitioner, having effect throughout the state of Maharashtra, under the provisions of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, certifying that the Petitioner I leal heir and representative of deceased, in respect of the property and credits set forth in schedule No. 1 annexed to the Petition.”

¶18

The Petition is allowed and disposed as above. The proclamation

¶19

is dispensed with.

¶20

Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.06.13
18:11:59
+0530

¶21

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶22

Nikita Gadgil 2/2

Prasad Sudhir Mohite v. Sudhir Purushottam Mohite

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad Sudhir Mohite v. Sudhir Purushottam Mohite

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kogta Financial (India) Ltd. vs Nanke Kanhaiyalal Gujar S/O. Kanhaiyalal Gujar

Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited Authorized Signatory Malhar Kulkarni vs Umar Faruk Manihar

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs Zahid Ali Siddiqui (Borrower)

Shriram Finance Ltd. vs Ganesh Rajaram Varande

Axis Bank (Formerly Known as Uti Bank Ltd) vs Nitin Kanade

Axis Bank (Formerly Known as Uti Bank Ltd) vs Santosh Pandey