Allowed¶20

Abhijit Gopalrao Kadam v. Sudha Gopalrao Kadam

Bombay HC12 Jun 2026MPT/282/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Legal heirship certificate; Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827; Bombay Regulation Act VIII of 1827; intestate succession; no Will; sole surviving legal heir; son of deceased; delay condonation more than 20 years; issuance of Proclamation dispensed with; co-operative housing society share transfer; Share Certificate No. 6052 dated 3 August 1998; Flat No. 12 Seventh Heaven Co-operative Housing Society Limited Parel Mumbai; Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction; Miscellaneous Petition No. 282 of 2026; Abhay Ahuya J.; decided 12 June 2026; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Legal Heirship Certificate under Bombay Regulation Act VIII of 1827 certifying Abhijit Gopalrao Kadam as the only heir and legal representative of both the deceased; delay of more than 20 years condoned; issuance of Proclamation dispensed with. ¶20

Abhijit Gopalrao Kadam vs Sudha Gopalrao Kadam — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, statedly the sole surviving legal heir of his deceased parents, is entitled to a Legal Heirship Certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, with condonation of the delay of more than 20 years and dispensation of Proclamation.

¶17

Court's answer

The delay of more than 20 years is condoned and the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b).

¶17

Ratio / Principle

A Legal Heirship Certificate is issued under the provision of Bombay Regulation Act VIII of 1827 certifying that Abhijit Gopalrao Kadam (son of the deceased) is the only heir and legal representative of both the deceased.

¶18

Key takeaways

Issuance of Proclamation is dispensed with.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction (Abhay Ahuja, J.), Miscellaneous Petition No. 282 of 2026, decided 12 June 2026: Petitioner Abhijit Gopalrao Kadam, statedly the sole surviving legal heir of his deceased parents Gopalrao Kadam and Sudha Gopalrao Kadam (who died intestate, leaving no testamentary writing or Will), sought a Legal Heirship Certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, required to transfer the 100% joint ownership rights, title and interest of the deceased parents in Flat No. 12 (about 600 sq.ft carpet area, 1st floor) together with five fully paid-up shares Nos. 6 to 10 of Rs. 50/- each under Share Certificate No. 6052 dated 3rd August 1998, allotted towards the flat in The Seventh Heaven Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Buddha Mandir Lane, Parel, Mumbai-400012, standing in the name of Mr. Gopal Rao Kadam (Deceased No. 2). The grandmother of the Petitioner pre-deceased the father. Delay of more than 20 years condoned; issuance of Proclamation dispensed with; Petition allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b), certifying the Petitioner as the only heir and legal representative of both the deceased.

¶1

MPT 282-26.doc

¶2

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

¶3

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 282 OF 2026

¶4

Abhijit Gopalrao Kadam ...Petitioner

¶5

Sudha Gopalrao Kadam & Gopalrao Kadam …Deceased

¶6

Ms. Pooja Shah with Ms. Samiksha Ludbe i/b RJ Law for the Petitioner.

¶7

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

¶8

By this Petition, the Petitioner, who statedly is a sole surviving legal heir of his parents seeks legal heirship certificate under the provisions of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 to the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Shah, learned Counsel appears for the Petitioner and submits that the parents of the Petitioner as well as the mother of the father of the Petitioner are deceased. That the mother of the father of the Petitioner pre-deceased the father of the Petitioner.

¶10

Digitally signed by NIKITA NIKITA YOGESH YOGESH GADGIL GADGIL Date: 2026.06.13 17:11:45 +0530

¶11

Ms. Shah has taken this Court through the death certificates of the parents as well as of the grand mother.

¶12

Ms. Shah submits that there is also a delay of more than 20 years, which may be condoned.

¶13

It is submitted that the deceased parents of the Petitioner have died intestate and there is no legal testamentary writing or Will.

¶14

Nikita Gadgil 1/3

¶15

MPT 282-26.doc

¶16

That the legal heirship certificate is required to transfer the 100% joint ownership rights, title and interest of the parents in respect of the flat no. 12, admeasuring about 600 sq.ft or thereabouts carpet area, on the 1^st floor with 5 fully paid up shares bearing distinctive Nos. from 6 to 10 (both included) of Rs. 50/- each, under Share Certificate No. 6052, dated 3^rd August, 1998, allotted towards the said flat no. 12, in society known as The Seventh Heaven Co-operative Housing Society Limited, situated at Buddha Mandir Lane, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (the “said flat”), issued by the society in the name of Mr. Gopal Rao Kadam (the Deceased No.2)., who was residing at the said flat at the time of his death.

¶17

Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the submissions as well as the material in support of the Petition placed on record, I am inclined to condone the delay and allow the Petition in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b), which read thus:-

¶18

“a) That a Legal Heirship Certificate be issued under the provision of Bombay Regulation Act VIII of 1827 Certifying that Abhijit Gopalrao Kadam (son of the deceased), is the only heir andLegalrepresentative of both the deceased.

¶19

b) That issuance of Proclamation be dispensed with.”

¶20

The Petition is allowed and disposed as above.

¶21

Nikita Gadgil 2/3

¶22

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶23

MPT 282-26.doc

¶24

Nikita Gadgil 3/3

Abhijit Gopalrao Kadam v. Sudha Gopalrao Kadam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijit Gopalrao Kadam v. Sudha Gopalrao Kadam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tata Capital Limited vs Dinkar Narayanrao Chatarkar and Anr.

M/S Srk Realty Pvt.Ltd vs Harbans Singh Kohli

Tata Capital Limited ( Formerly Known as Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. ) vs S M Enterprises Prop Sukhdev Kamanna Pujari

Halimabai Ibrahim Abdul Latif vs Sabir Ibrahim Lokhandwala

Amrita Asimkumar Basu vs Asimkumar Janendranath Basu alias Asim Kumar Basu

Hashmat Sagarsen vs Sagar Madan Sen alias Sagar Sen