MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

Is Death certificate required for authorised successor certificate ? NO !!



Ankit Bhagwaticharan Verma …Deceased
Vinita Ankit Verma …Petitioner

Mr. Gajendra Jaywant Waity, for a Petitioner.


DATED: 16th Mar 2016


This is a common focus for emanate of a Legal Heirship Certificate underneath Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. The box of this Petitioner is that she is a widow of one Ankit Bhagwaticharan Verma, who died in Kalyan on 11th May 2015.

Durign his lifetime, a defunct lived in Mumbai. The Petitioner says that a defunct died intestate. A duplicate of his genocide certificate is annexed. The Petitioner says that a defunct was survived by herself and their dual children, a daughter aged 16 years and a teenager son aged 8 years. These 3 names are mentioned in a tabulation next divide 4 of a petition. Below this divide is one visualisation that a mom of a deceased, Ankit’s mom died before him. It is on this matter that a dialect seems to have taken some arrange of conflict and asked for prolongation of a genocide certificate of a deceased’s mother.

  1. I am incompetent to know since and on what basement underneath a Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 any such conflict is being raised. It can't be an unvarying requirement in any and any case. In a sold box if a Court feels, on a contribution of that case, that it requires to be offer confident on about a genuineness of that application, afterwards a Court might positively in a choice ask for additional documents. But in doing this, a Court contingency have courtesy to a inlet of a focus and what is dictated by it and what a Regulation itself provides.
  • In a initial place Regulation 1 of a Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 says that where a chairman dies withdrawal skill of any description, a heir, executor or director might assume a government or sue for liberation of a skill in consent with law or germane use though creation any prior focus to a Court to be rigourously recognised.
  • Section 2 afterwards says that if an heir, executor or director wishes to have his right rigourously recognised, an focus is to be finished to Court. Section 2 is interestingly worded. It reads thus:
See also  Whether one member of joint family can take plea of adverse possession against another member?

“2.First.–But if an heir, executor or director is fervent of carrying his right rigourously famous by a Court; for a purpose of digest it some-more protected for persons in possession of, or gladdened to, a estate to acknowledge and understanding with him, a Judge, on application, shall 2 of 7 913-MPTL2428-15.DOC emanate a proclamation, in a form contained in Appendix A, mouth-watering all persons who brawl a right of a Applicant to seem in a Court within one month from a date of a commercial and enter their objections, and dogmatic that, if no sufficient conflict is offered, a Judge will ensue to accept of a explanation of a right of a Applicant, and, if satisfied, extend him a certificate of heirship, executorship or administratorship.


for proclamation]

Rep. Act, XII of 1873.”

  1. Read together, Sections 1 and 2 can customarily meant that no heirship focus is positively compulsory in law, though a focus is customarily meant to concede an heir, executor or director who wishes to have an heirship certificate during his choice so that, in a difference of a statute, it is “more safe” for others who are traffic with a deceased’s resources to acknowledge and understanding with such heir, executor or administrator.
  • Section 2 also provides for a distribution of proclamation; nonetheless another safeguard. Sections 3 and 4 understanding with a routine that follows. Section 4 creates it transparent that a review is of a outline inlet and that if a emanate is difficult a Court might postpone a record in a focus for a certificate until a doubt has been attempted by a unchanging fit instituted by one of a parties.
  • We are not endangered with Section 5 that deals with a flawlessness of a Will. We are, however, endangered with Section 7 that needs to be set out in full. It has 3 tools and they review thus:

“7. First.–An heir, executor or

administrator, holding a proper

certificate, might do all acts and extend all deeds efficient to a authorised heir, executor or administrator, and might sue and obtain visualisation in any Court in that capacity, Second.–But, as a certificate confers no right to a property, though customarily indicates a chairman who, for a time being is in a authorised government thereof, a extenuation of such certificate shall not finally establish nor harm a rights of any person; and a certificate shall be annulled by a Zilla Court, on explanation that another chairman has a preferable right.

See also  Is false implication fabrication of evidence

Third.–An heir, executor or administrator, holding a certificate, shall be accountable for his acts finished in that ability to all persons carrying an seductiveness in a property, in a same demeanour as if no certificate had been granted.”

  1. This clearly establishes that a certificate released underneath Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 confers no right to any property. It customarily indicates a chairman who (for a time being ) is in a authorised government of it. It can always be annulled on explanation that another chairman has a preferable right.
  • I would suppose that in perspective of these provisions, it is unconditionally nonessential for a Registry to arrangement such unusual counsel or fearfulness and to direct ancestral genocide certificates. A matter finished by a Petitioner is that a deceased’s mom predeceased a defunct is positively sufficient, for it is finished on oath.
  • I am also incompetent to know since a dialect insists on genocide certificate of customarily one of a relatives of a deceased. If this is a requirement of law, afterwards positively a dialect contingency ask for a genocide certificates of both relatives of a deceased; and by judicious extension, a genocide certificates of their relatives on any side, and so on to a finish of a chapter, going behind large generations.
  • If this is a kind of procession is to be followed for distribution of small certificate that confers no right to a property, does not finally establish nor harm a right of any chairman and a emanate of that is customarily to make it safer for a third celebration to understanding with a Applicant, afterwards no Heirship Certificate will ever be postulated by this Court, for any Applicant will substantially spent his whole lifetime entertainment genocide certificates going behind decades or even centuries.

No one can make such final unthinkingly. What if a deceased’s mom died decades ago, before a Petitioner married a deceased? What if a mom died somewhere else and not in Mumbai?

  1. I consternation too what a dialect creates of a second visualisation next a list and divide 4. Here, a Petitioner states that “the defunct had no other son and daughter save and solely those mentioned herein and there are no other heirs left by a deceased”. If a dialect wants a genocide certificate of a deceased’s mom afterwards it stays unexplained since a dialect does not find a birth certificates of these children or some other problematic explanation that he had no other children or no other heirs. The whole purpose of this Petition would be lost.
  • This proceed says some-more about a Courts, nothing of it really good, and reduction about a petitioner. We are not here to be mindlessly opposed and to tell field who come before us that this or that can't be finished and to uncover them a door. We are here since they have a authorised problem, for that there is always an answer in law. We are not, in this, to be forgetting of possibly law or procedure. The former contingency be followed. But where it contains no deadly restrictions, to plead a latter, a manners of procedure, to better an differently correct focus is unjust. Our manners contingency offer a cause, not better it. We can't let a best be a rivalry of a good. We positively can't concede a handmaiden of probity to turn a dominatrix.1
  • Consequently, unless in a sold box a Court after requesting a mind and, we expect, for some brief reasons, as is customarily done, prolongation is compulsory of a genocide certificate of a chairman pronounced to have predeceased a one in honour of whom a Heirship Certificate, a dialect is not to insist on a prolongation of such documents.
See also  Whether arbitrator can decide claim for recovery of licence fees?

Kailash v Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480; validated and practical in Jagatjit Industries Ltd v The Intellectual Property Appellate Board Ors., 2016 SCC Online 58.

  1. The benefaction Petition is listed for directions. The departmental requisitions are dispensed with. The matter of a Petitioner that there are no other authorised heirs are accepted. The Proclamation is dispensed with. The Petition is finished returnable on 23rd Mar 2016.
  • All endangered to act on an real duplicate of this order.

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

div.wpmrec2x div.u > div:nth-child(3n){margin-right:0px;}

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.


CopyRight @ MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Divorce : False allegation of adultery against husband is cruelty
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation