IN RE: GANPATI VINAYAK ACHWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had applied for heirship certificate under Rule-2 of the Bombay Regulation Act in respect of his father and his two uncles who had died Bachelors. All the three brothers have left immovable properties at Ambernath, Thane. The death of the father had taken place on 25th September, 1968 and the death of the uncles had taken place on 20th November, 1985 and 13th July, 1990.

(2.) The application had been filed by the petitioner through his son and Constituted Attorney. As per the prescribed procedure, citation and public notices were issued for calling objections from the public at large. No objection was received from anybody to resist the application. Despite the fact, the trial Court i.e. the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Kalyan rejected the application on two grounds. The first ground was bar of limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and the second ground was physical incapacity of the petitioner to manage the properties. Being aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the petitioner has invoked extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Badgujar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, submits that the learned Trial Court Judge had completely misdirected himself as regards the purpose of heirship certificate. He further submits that considering the nature of the certificate and its purpose, neither the bar under Article 137 of the Limitation Act is attracted to it, nor the health of the petitioner can be considered for grant of the certificate. Mr. Badgujar, refers to the provisions of the Bombay Regulation Act, 1827 ("the Regulation" for short) to point out that, the purpose of issuance of heirship certificate thereunder is only to provide formal recognition to the heirs and as such the right to apply for heirship certificate would be a continuous right, which is capable of being exercised as long as the object of the application exists.