BABAN RAMCHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. PARAG ARVIND SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this review application the applicants seek review of the judgment and order dated 30-06-2017 passed by this Court, whereby Civil Revision Application No.91 of 2016 filed by the applicants was dismissed by the said order and the order dated 14-09-2016 passed by the Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur stood confirmed, whereby the application for grant of heirship certificate filed by the applicants under the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation") was rejected.

(2.) The facts in brief pertaining to the present case are as under:- One Eknath Ganesh Kasture was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.138 situated at Mouza Patunda, Tah. Nandura, District Buldhana and house bearing No.328 situated at village Alampur, Tah. Nandura. He died in the year 1958, leaving behind his widows Janabai, son Laxman and married daughter Nanibai. Janabai died on 01-12-1981. She was survived by the two sons by name Arvind and Baban and two daughters by name Nanibai and Malti. Laxman died on 02-12-2009 and his wife Vimal died on 21-07-1992. Arvind, the son of Nanibai, died on 30-12-1998 and his wife Sindhu died on 08-0-2-2004. They were survived by non-applicant no.1 Parag and non- applicant no.2 Sharad. Baban, Nalini, Devki @ Malti, who were the children of Nanibai, are the applicants in this case.

(3.) According to the applicants, during her life time Nanibai had executed Will in favour of her son on 01-10-2003, which was registered on 15-10-2003 before Sub- registrar, Nagpur, bequeathing her property and share in favour of her son applicant no.1-Baban. On the basis of this will-deed executed by Nanibai, the applicants herein filed the application for grant of heirship certificate under the provisions of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, submitting that they have become the owners of the property left behind by Eknath, which was succeeded by Nanibai and she had bequeathed the same to applicant no.-1Baban. It was also contended that as Laxman had died issue-less, his share in the property also devolved upon the applicants and hence they were entitled to manage the whole of the property left behind by Eknath.