PARESH SHANTILAL PANDYA Vs. KANTILAL GHANSHYAMBHAI BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 56 of the Indian Succession Act, directed against the order dated 17th February, 1998 passed in Civil Misc. Application No. 559 of 1995 filed on 19th December, 1995 by the respondent No. 1 herein for obtaining heirship certificate in respect of property situated at Rajkot which was purchased under a registered sale deed Exh. 17 in July 19, 1966 by deceased Ghanshyambhai Bhatt, who died on 14th November, 1989.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 is the widow of Ghanshyambhai Bhatt. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are objectors in the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1 for grant of heirship certificate. Ghanshyambhai Bhatt is survived by his widow-respondent No. 1 herein, three sons and two daughters. All the sons and daughters have favoured in writing respondent No. 1, meaning thereby, they have given their no objection in case heirship certificate is granted in favourt of respondent No. 1, i.e., their mother. In response to the public notice issued in the local news paper inviting objections, Paresh Shantilal Pandya-the appellant herein-and Rajnikant Shantilal Pandya with Arun Laxmishankar Bhatt filed objections. The learned Court below rejected the objections of the appellants and respondents No. 2 and 3 under the impugned order. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have not preferred any appeal before this Court. So in this appeal I am only concerned with the objectons filed by the appellant.

(3.) The appellant raised main objection that the property in respect of which respondent No. 1 seeks heirship certificate was not self-acquired properly of the deceased, and that it was an ancestral property wherein he has right to claim share. Another objection is regarding valuation of the property. The objector put the value of the property at more than Rs. 10 lacs. The objection was that the property in respect of which heirship certificate was claimed by respondent No. 1 was purchased with the help of the money which the objector's father sent to the deceased Ghanshyambhai Bhatt. It has further been stated that the sale deed under which Laxmishankar sold this property to the deceased is a bogus document. In the course of argument one more objection has been raised, that the heirship certificate cannot be claimed and cannot be granted in respect of part or portion of the estate of the deceased. The learned Court below has not accepted any of the objections raised by the objector and under the impugned order heirship certificate was ordered to be graned in favour of respondent No.1. Hence this appeal before this Court.