BOMBAY HIGH COURT
KUSUM CHANDRAKANT SHANKARDAS AND ... VS
RAJESHRI CHANDRAKANT SHANKARDAS ... ON 1 NOVEMBER, 2017
Summarised Judgement (Scroll for Complete Judgement)
Summarised Judgement (Scroll for Complete Judgement)
Introduction:
Petitioner no.1 claims to be the widow of the deceased
Chandrakant Shantaram Shankardas, while petitioner nos.2 and 3 claim to be the
daughters of the deceased through petitioner no.1. The respondents were
applicants for heirship rpa 2/14 mpt-32-17.doc certificate in Misc. Petition
No.160 of 2015. Respondent no.1 claims to be the wife of the deceased and
respondent nos.2 to 4 claim to be his daughters through respondent no.1. The
deceased was a retired army officer who died intestate on 14 th August, 2013.
Facts of the Case:
In or about 1969, the marriage of respondent no.1 and
the deceased was solemnized at Malvan. It is the case of the petitioners that
in the year 1982, respondent no.1 deserted the deceased, ever since when the
deceased and respondent no.1 were living separately. It is claimed that
eventually, in or about 1983, there was a customary divorce between the
deceased and respondent no.1. It is the case of the petitioners that on 25 th
May, 1984, the deceased married petitioner no.1 as per Hindu rites and
ceremonies. It is claimed that not only did respondent no.1 not object to the
marriage, but she herself made arrangements for the same. On 10th November,
1986 and 7th August, 1993, petitioner nos.2 and 3 were, respectively, born from
the wedlock between the deceased and petitioner no.1.
Observation of Court:
The petitioners, accordingly, have made out a clear
case under Section 390 read with Section 383 (b) of the Indian Succession Act,
1925. The heirship certificate issued in the present case is, in the premises,
liable to be revoked. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a). No order as to costs.
The parties, however, will be at liberty to apply for
heirship certificate in future jointly in favour of the respondents and
petitioner nos.2 and 3.
Since the main petition itself is disposed of by the
present order, the Notice of Motion does not survive and the same is also
disposed of.
Judgement:
Learned counsel for the respondents applies for stay
of this order. Since the present order is passed after fully hearing the
parties and also reserving liberty to apply for a heirship certificate afresh,
the prayer is rejected.
In the facts of the case, the respondents cannot be
allowed to claim as sole heirs of the deceased to the exclusion of petitioner
nos.2 and 3 even for a limited period.
----------------------------------------------
Complete Judgement
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
KUSUM CHANDRAKANT SHANKARDAS AND ... VS
RAJESHRI CHANDRAKANT SHANKARDAS ... ON 1 NOVEMBER, 2017
Bench: S.C. Gupte
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE
JURISDICTION
MISC. PETITION NO.32 OF 2017
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.57 OF
2017
Kusum Chandrakant Shankardas
& Ors..................... Petitioner
V/s.
Rajeshri Chandrakant
Shankardas & Ors......................... Respondents
......
Mr.Aseem Naphade a/w.Mr.A.P.
Singh, Advocate for the Petitioners/ Applicants.
Ms.Rohini Dandekar, Advocate
for Respondents.
......
CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.
DATED : NOVEMBER 1, 2017.
P.C. :
This Misc. Petition seeks
revocation of a Legal Heirship Certificate granted under Section 2 of the
Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, in favour of the respondents herein.
2 Petitioner no.1 claims to
be the widow of the deceased Chandrakant Shantaram Shankardas, while petitioner
nos.2 and 3 claim to be the daughters of the deceased through petitioner no.1.
The respondents were applicants for heirship rpa 2/14 mpt-32-17.doc certificate
in Misc. Petition No.160 of 2015. Respondent no.1 claims to be the wife of the
deceased and respondent nos.2 to 4 claim to be his daughters through respondent
no.1. The deceased was a retired army officer who died intestate on 14 th
August, 2013.
3 The facts of the present
case may be briefly noted as follows:
In or about 1969, the
marriage of respondent no.1 and the deceased was solemnized at Malvan. It is
the case of the petitioners that in the year 1982, respondent no.1 deserted the
deceased, ever since when the deceased and respondent no.1 were living separately.
It is claimed that eventually, in or about 1983, there was a customary divorce
between the deceased and respondent no.1. It is the case of the petitioners
that on 25 th May, 1984, the deceased married petitioner no.1 as per Hindu
rites and ceremonies. It is claimed that not only did respondent no.1 not
object to the marriage, but she herself made arrangements for the same. On 10th
November, 1986 and 7th August, 1993, petitioner nos.2 and 3 were, respectively,
born from the wedlock between the deceased and petitioner no.1. It is the case
of the rpa 3/14 mpt-32-17.doc petitioners that they were living with the
deceased in the tenement which was being redeveloped through Slum
Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA", for short).
Pending such redevelopment,
on or about 14th August, 2013, the deceased passed away. It is the case of the
petitioners that petitioner no.1 started receiving monthly compensation of
Rs.14,000/- from the developer M/s.Surana Constructions, and continued to do so
till about March 2016. Around March 2016, the petitioners learnt, on an
application under Right to Information Act, that the respondents had obtained
legal heirship certificate in respect of their alleged heirship of the deceased
through Misc. Application No.160 of 2015. The petitioners also learnt that
based on the legal heirship certificate, the Collector had added the name of
respondent no.1 in Annexure-II in respect of the redevelopment project. The
petitioners raised an objection before the SRA, concerning inclusion of the
name of respondent no.1 in Annexure-II. The objection was rejected by SRA. In
the premises, the present petition for revocation of the legal heirship
certificate is moved by the petitioners before this Court.
4 The record of the case
reveals that Misc. Petition No.160 of 2015, under Section 2 of Bombay
Regulation VIII of rpa 4/14 mpt-32-17.doc 1827, was moved before this Court on
10th September, 2015, in pursuance of a requisition by SRA to that effect. It
also appears that the misc. petition moved by the respondents herein does not
refer to either the desertion or customary divorce between respondent no.1 and
the deceased or the marriage of the deceased to petitioner no.1 or birth of
petitioner nos.2 and 3 out of the second wedlock. The misc. petition, on the other
hand, claims the respondents to be the only heirs and next of kin of the
deceased in accordance with law. It also appears that this Court, vide order
dated 14th December, 2015, dispensed with the proclamation and, thereafter, on
January 2016, made the petition absolute and directed issuance of heirship
certificate in favour of the respondents.
5 The basis of the present
revocation application is that, firstly, the proceedings to obtain the heirship
certificate were defective in substance, inasmuch as the mandatory requirement
of a proclamation was dispensed with and, secondly, the certificate itself was
obtained fraudulently by making of false suggestions and concealment from the
Court of material facts. It is submitted that the desertion and customary divorce
between the deceased and respondent no.1 as well as the marriage rpa 5/14
mpt-32-17.doc between the deceased and petitioner no.1 and birth of two
daughters, i.e. petitioner nos.2 and 3, from out of that wedlock, are matters
which are actively concealed from the Court whilst obtaining the heirship
certificate. It is submitted that there is a false suggestion deliberately and
knowingly made in the original application for heirship certificate that the
respondents were the only heirs and next of kin of the deceased.
6 Learned counsel for the
petitioners, at the hearing of the present misc. petition, does not press for
recognition of the right of petitioner no.1 as legal heir of the deceased,
since there was admittedly no formal divorce as between the deceased and
respondent no.1 (his first wife) in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu
Marriage Act. Learned counsel, however, relying on the provisions of Section 16
of the Hindu Marriage Act, submits that even assuming the marriage between the
deceased and petitioner no.1 herein to be void on account of spouse of the
deceased husband being living at the time of the marriage, the children of the
marriage are still treated as legitimate and their rights as legal heirs and
next of kin of the deceased, cannot be denied to them.
7 A legal heirship
certificate was issued in the present case under the provisions of Bombay
Regulation VIII of 1827. The regulation (Section 2 thereof) inter-alia provides
that if any heir is desirous of having his right formally recognized by the
Court, the judge, on an application of such heir, shall issue a proclamation in
the form contained in Appendix - A to the Regulation, inviting all persons, who
dispute the right of the applicant, to appear in the Court and submit their objections,
and if, no sufficient objection is offered to the application, the judge shall
proceed to receive proof of the right of the applicant and upon being
satisfied, grant a certificate of heirship to the applicant. It is also to be
noted that by virtue of Section 390 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, various
provisions contained in Part-X of that Act concerning succession certificates
including Section 383 of that Act are made applicable, so far as may be, to the
heirship certificates granted under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827. Section 383
of the Succession Act provides for revocation of any succession certificate
granted under Part-X , inter-alia in a case where (i) the proceedings to obtain
such certificate were defective in substance [clause (a)] or (ii) the
certificate was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or by
concealment from rpa 7/14 mpt-32-17.doc the Court of something material to the
case [clause (b)].
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners in the
present case is, firstly, that since issuance of proclamation is an essential
condition for accepting the claim of heirship and issue a heirship certificate
and that condition was not followed in the present case, the proceedings to
obtain the heirship certificate can be said to be defective in substance. It is
secondly submitted that inasmuch as there is a fraudulent suggestion on the
part of the respondents herein whilst obtaining the heirship certificate that
they were the only legal heirs and next of kin to the deceased, as also an
active concealment of the fact of the second marriage of the deceased with
petitioner no.1 and birth of two daughters (petitioner nos.2 and 3) from out of
that wedlock, the heirship certificate is liable to be revoked.
8 It is pertinent to note
that as far as clause (a) of Section 383 is concerned, a case must be made out
that the proceedings were defective in substance. The petitioners claim that
since the proclamation was mandatory under the provisions of Section 2 of
Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, issuance of heirship certificate in the present
case was defective for want of such proclamation. It is pertinent to note in
this behalf that the rpa 8/14 mpt-32-17.doc proclamation was dispensed with by
an express order of the Court. If the misc. petition for heirship certificate
was pressed before the Court, without issuing the proclamation as per the
dispensation granted by the Court, the proceedings cannot be said to be
defective in substance. It is another matter if without seeking any dispensation
the heirship certificate was applied for without such proclamation. In such
case, the proceedings would be defective in substance. So long as the order of
the Court providing for dispensation of the proclamation stands and is not set
aside, it is not for any party to claim that proceedings to obtain heirship
certificate without a proclamation suffer from any defect in substance. There
is, accordingly, no merit in the first objection raised by the petitioner.
9 Clause (b) of Section 383
deals with a case where the heirship certificate is obtained fraudulently by
making of a false suggestion or by concealment from the Court of something
material to the case. 'Fraud' itself implies suggestion of a fact by one who
does not believe it to be true or an active concealment of a fact by one having
knowledge or belief of the fact. In either case, therefore, for seeking
revocation of a certificate granted under Part-X of the Indian Succession Act,
or a heirship rpa 9/14 mpt-32-17.doc certificate granted under Section 2 of
Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, the applicant for revocation must make out
three ingredients; firstly, it needs to be shown that there is a false
suggestion or concealment of a material particular in the application for
heirship certificate; secondly, such suggestion or concealment must be shown to
have been made knowingly, that is to say, by someone who does not believe the
suggestion to be true or who has the knowledge or belief of the fact concealed;
thirdly, there should be no other consideration affecting the maintainability
of the application for revocation, for example, bar of limitation or equitable
considerations affecting the applicant's right to seek revocation.
10 Let us now consider
whether these three ingredients are made out in the present case. Insofar as
the falsehood of the suggestion or concealment of the material facts is
concerned, there is ample material on record to show that the deceased
subsequently married petitioner no.1 and two daughters (petitioner nos.2 and 3)
were born to him out of that wedlock. The petitioners have relied on the
marriage card as well as birth certificates of petitioner nos.2 and 3 issued by
the Municipal Corporation Greater Mumbai as also other identity proofs such as
rpa 10/14 mpt-32-17.doc Aadhar Card, Pan Card and Bank accounts as also voter
ID Card and Smart Card issued to the deceased as a retired Army personal, in
this behalf. There is overwhelming material on record to show that the deceased
married petitioner no.1 in the year 1984 and petitioner nos.2 and 3 were born
out of this wedlock. Even if the marriage of the deceased with petitioner no.1
were to be treated as void under the provisions of Section 11 of the Hindu
Marriage Act by reason of the earlier spouse of the deceased, namely, respondent
no.1, being living on the date of the second marriage, the heirship of
petitioner nos.2 and 3 as daughters of the deceased cannot be denied. As
provided by Section 16 of the Hindu marriage Act, notwithstanding that the
marriage is null and void under Section 11, any child of such marriage, who
would have been legitimate, if the marriage had been valid, shall be
legitimate.
This is so even if there is a decree of nullity granted in respect
of that marriage under the Act or the marriage is held to be void otherwise
than on a petition under the Act. The statement made in the original misc.
petition for heriship certificate that the respondents herein were the only
legal heirs and next of kin of the deceased, can thus be said to be plainly
false. By the same token, there is also concealment of a material fact, namely,
that there were two daughters of the deceased born out of the second rpa 11/14
mpt-32-17.doc wedlock, who were living on the date of the application for
heirship certificate.
11 The next question to be
considered is whether this concealment is said to be an active concealment by a
person having knowledge or belief of the fact or the false suggestion is made
by a person who does not believe the same to be true. At the very outset, in
this behalf, it must be noted that petitioner no.1 and respondent no.1 are real
sisters. It is inherently improbable that respondent no.1 would be ignorant of
the fact that her real sister was living with her deceased husband and two
daughters were born to her from him. Besides, it is important to note that in
the face of elaborate assertions of the petitioners in their misc. petition
that the deceased married petitioner no.1 on 25th May, 1984 and the two were
living together from 1985 till the time of his death and petitioner nos.2 and 3
were born out of that wedlock on 10th November, 1986 and 1983, backed by
voluminous record in proof of such assertions, all that one finds in the
respondents' reply to the misc. petition is a bare denial of the relevant
paragraphs as a whole (paragraphs 7,8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the misc. petition),
by a one liner that the respondents deny and do not admit the contents thereof
and put the petitioners to rpa 12/14 mpt-32-17.doc the strict proof. The third
important circumstance in this behalf to be noted is that not only had the
deceased himself executed an affidavit on 21st September, 2004, for including
the names of the petitioners herein as his legal heirs in the records of his
employer, by asserting his marriage with petitioner no.1 and birth of his two
daughters, namely, petitioner nos.2 and 3, there is also an affidavit by
respondent no.1 herself testifying to the correctness of the affidavit of the
deceased.
Though the respondents contest the factum as well as the affirmation
of the aforesaid two affidavits, in the face of the voluminous evidence
referred to above and in the face of the rival pleadings of the parties in the
misc. petition, by a preponderance of probabilities, the making of the
affidavits is clearly believable. In the face of this evidence, the
respondents, and particularly respondent no.1, who was the applicant in the
original misc. petition for heirship certificate, can certainly be fastened
with the knowledge of the marriage between the deceased and petitioner no.1
and, at any rate, the birth of petitioner nos.2 and 3 out of the said wedlock.
The second ingredient of clause (b) is accordingly made out. 12 Insofar as
other considerations are concerned, the only objections raised by the
respondents to the present rpa 13/14 mpt-32-17.doc application for revocation
are on the ground, firstly, that the petitioners herein did not at any time
apply for any succession or heirship certificate, and, secondly, the
petitioners have encroached upon and forcibly occupied some other properties of
the deceased. None of the objections is material or germane from the point of
view of the present revocation application. There is no compulsion for any
legal heir of a deceased predecessor to either apply for a succession
certificate or a heirship certificate. In fact, as required by Section 2 of
Bombay Regulation VIII of 1982, it is only when the heir is desirous of having
his right formally recognized by a Court that he needs to apply to the Judge
for a heirship certificate. Forcible possession or occupation of the property
of the deceased is, by its very nature, neither here nor there insofar as the
present revocation application is concerned.
13 The petitioners,
accordingly, have made out a clear case under Section 390 read with Section 383
(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The heirship certificate issued in the
present case is, in the premises, liable to be revoked. Accordingly, the
petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs.
14 The parties, however,
will be at liberty to apply for heirship certificate in future jointly in
favour of the respondents and petitioner nos.2 and 3.
15 Since the main petition
itself is disposed of by the present order, the Notice of Motion does not
survive and the same is also disposed of.
16 Learned counsel for the
respondents applies for stay of this order. Since the present order is passed
after fully hearing the parties and also reserving liberty to apply for a
heirship certificate afresh, the prayer is rejected. In the facts of the case,
the respondents cannot be allowed to claim as sole heirs of the deceased to the
exclusion of petitioner nos.2 and 3 even for a limited period.
(S.C. GUPTE, J.)
---------------------------------------------------
AS - 29122019
No comments:
Post a Comment