Introduction:
The complexities surrounding legal heirship certificates and the importance of establishing relationships in inheritance cases are recurring issues in the Indian Heritance Laws. It is quite significant in issuing proclamations, raising objections before the court, and the process of determining legal heirs, as seen in many cases which surround under the legal heritance of a given individual. The legal intricacies involved in proving relationships and the necessity of court intervention in resolving such matters have been discussed in this article through a order recently passed by the High Court of Bombay, At Bombay, in Testamentary And Intestate Jurisdiction, Miscellaneous Petition (L) No.24140 Of 2023, Miscellaneous Petition No.357 Of 2023 in the case of Gitadevi Ramprakash Podar Vs. Pragnesh Narayan Podar and others
Background of the case:
The petitioner, Gitadevi Ramprakash Podar, filed a petition seeking revocation of a legal heirship certificate granted to the respondents – Pragnesh Narayan Podar and others. The legal heirship certificate was regarding the estate of the deceased, Narayan Tejpal Podar.
The petitioner claimed to be the biological mother of the deceased and on that basis claimed to be one of his legal heirs. She referred to another pending suit where she sought a declaration that the deceased was her son. She also challenged his alleged adoption by his uncle Tejpal Podar.
It was stated that despite being aware of her suit through court notices, the respondents did not inform the Court hearing their petition for a legal heirship certificate. As a result, the Court dispensed with issuing a proclamation and allowed their petition.
The petitioner argued that non-disclosure of her pending suit amounted to suppression of facts and fraud upon the Court. She sought revocation of the legal heirship certificate granted to the respondents.
The respondents opposed the petition arguing there was no fraud or suppression of facts. They stated that any dispute between the parties would not affect the legal heirship certificate granted to them regarding the deceased’s estate.
Based on the arguments presented and the examination of the relevant regulation, the court found that the petitioner had not made a case for revoking the grant of the legal heirship certificate. The court concluded that since proclamation was dispensed with by an express order of the court and not set aside, the petitioner could not challenge the same.
Gitadevi claims to be the biological mother of the deceased Narayan and is seeking a 1/4th share in his estate as a legal heir.
She has filed a separate suit seeking a declaration that Narayan was her son from her husband Ramprakash Podar. She denies Narayan’s alleged adoption by Tejpal Podar (Ramprakash’s brother) and wants the adoption declared illegal.
Pragnesh Narayan Podar and others had earlier obtained a legal heirship certificate from the High Court naming them as Narayan’s legal heirs. Gitadevi alleges they suppressed vital information to get the certificate.
In light of the above facts both parties had placed their arguments:
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- The petitioner Gitadevi Poddar claimed to be the biological mother of the deceased Narayan Podar and thus one of his legal heirs.
- She stated that despite the respondents being aware of her pending suit claiming to be Narayan’s mother, they suppressed this from the Court hearing their petition for a legal heirship certificate.
- The respondents obtained an order dispensing with issuing a proclamation in their legal heirship petition by suppressing facts about her suit.
- As per Clause 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, a proclamation ought to have been issued to provide her an opportunity to dispute the respondents’ claim as sole heirs.
- The suppression of facts and failure to issue a proclamation amounted to fraud and vitiated the grant of the legal heirship certificate to the respondents.
- Thus the legal heirship certificate granted to the respondents deserved to be revoked and she should be given a fair chance to establish her claim as Narayan’s heir.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The petitioner’s pending suit claiming to be the mother of the deceased was filed much later in the year 2023. When their petition for a legal heirship certificate was filed in the year 2021, their statements regarding Narayan’s heirs were correct.
- As per Clause 2 of the Bombay Regulation, a proclamation is required when someone disputes the right of the applicant to be the legal heir. The petitioner’s suit does not dispute their status as Narayan’s heirs.
- On the date the legal heirship petition was allowed, there was no suppression of facts. Respondent 2 and 3 had appeared in court and consented to the petition being allowed.
- A legal heirship certificate merely facilitates the management of the deceased’s estate and does not confer title rights. The petitioner can file appropriate civil proceedings separately to establish her claims over Narayan’s estate.
Court’s Decision:
Based on the arguments presented and the examination of the relevant regulation, the court found that the petitioner had not made a case for revoking the grant of the legal heirship certificate. The court concluded that since proclamation was dispensed with by an express order of the court and not set aside, the petitioner could not challenge the same.
The Court dismissed Gitadevi’s petition seeking revocation of the legal heirship certificate on the following grounds:
1) Merely filing a suit seeking a declaration cannot compel the respondents to inform the court hearing their heirship petition. Gitadevi’s status as an heir itself requires it to be legally established first.
2) The facts stated in the 2021 heirship petition were accurate at the time, since Gitadevi only filed her claim as an heir subsequently in the year 2023.
3) The purpose of proclamation is to notify persons disputing the heirship status itself. At this stage Gitadevi only claims to be an additional heir, not disputing the status of the other heirs.
4) Gitadevi’s claim to be Narayan’s heir remains legally unproven and thus she cannot oppose Pragnesh’s certificate on the basis of a mere claim.
5) Importantly, the heirship certificate does not by itself confer title or affect the rights of third parties like Gitadevi. It only entails a right to manage the properties, which can subsequently be challenged.
The court hence found the respondents did not engage in suppression or fraudulent means to secure their certificate. The certificate rightly enables them to assume management duties over Narayan’s estate pending further orders. As the suit filed by Gitadevi proceeds for trial, the concerned judge will examine if she indeed qualifies as the deceased’s legal heir.
The court emphasized that proclamation can be dispensed with only when all the legal heirs come together and express their consent and willingness for the application of the petitioner to be granted. If any person entitled to claim the status of the legal heir is not before the court as a consenting individual, proclamation has to be issued.
The Court did not find adequate grounds to revoke the legal heirship certificate granted to Pragnesh Narayan Podar and others as heirs of the deceased Narayan Tejpal Podar. Gitadevi’s petition was therefore dismissed, allowing the certificate to stand.
Conclusion
Inheritance cases often witness tangled family relationships and claims. The case is a reminder that conclusively determining relationships through proper evidence is vital for courts to uphold succession rights. Obtaining legal heirship alone does not guarantee inheritance until relationships are judicially verified. This case also highlights the complexities surrounding legal heirship certificates and establishing inheritance rights. The petitioner failed to revoke the certificate granted to the respondents as she could not conclusively establish her relationship as the deceased’s mother at the time.
It demonstrates that merely initiating suits claiming heirship status later is not enough for courts to intervene and revoke certificates already granted. Importantly, it affirms that legal heirship certificates are only for estate administration and do not confer property titles or affect third party rights.
Overall, the order balances procedural propriety in granting certificates with protecting lawful inheritance claims to uphold fairness.
This article has been authored by Darshan Mehta, Partner at Dhruve Liladhar & Co., Advocates, Solicitors & Notary.