Malathi Dasan v. Raja Dasan @ R. Dasan (Deceased)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Anjali T.

Aswale TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION Anjali T. Aswale Date: 2020.09.29 17:37:12 +0530 MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.41 OF 2020 Raja Dasan @ R. Dasan ... Deceased Malathi Dasan ... Petitioner ----- Mr.S.U. Lakdawala, for the Petitioner.

----- CORAM: B.P. COLABAWALLA J.

(Through Video Conference) DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2020 P.C.:

1.

The above Petition has been fled seeking a Legal Heirship Certifcate under Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, in respect of the deceased Raja Dasan @ R. Dasan, a Hindu, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai. The deceased expired on 31st December, 2007. A copy of his death certifcate is annexed at Exhibit 'A' to the Petition. 2.

On 9th September, 2020 when the matter came up, I had requested the Petitioner's advocate to address this court on whether delay can be condoned, and therefore, the matter was stood over to 16th September, 2020.

3.

On 16th September, 2020, the learned advocate brought to my attention Rule 382 of the Bombay High Court (Original Sides) Rules,

1980, which states that where an application for probate or letters of administration or succession certifcate is made for the frst time after the lapse of three years from the death of the deceased, the reason for the delay shall be explained in the Petition. Relying upon this Provision, the learned advocate submitted that the Court has the power to condone the delay. Being satisfed with this argument, I thereafter proceeded to peruse the Petition. The explanation given in the Petition for the delay was wholly unsatisfactory. It is, in these circumstances, instead of rejecting the Petition on this ground, I gave an opportunity to the Petitioner to explain the delay by fling a further affdavit. 4.

Accordingly, the Petitioner has fled an affdavit dated 18th September, 2020. On going through the affdavit, I fnd that the Petitioner has suffciently explained the delay and hence I have heard the learned advocate for the Petitioner on merits. 5.

From the Petition, it is pointed out that the deceased was survived by his widow, daughter and son, as more particularly set out in paragraph 4 of the Petition. The reason for seeking a Legal Heirship Certifcate is mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Petition, namely, that it is required for having the property belonging to the deceased transferred in the name of heirs. All the heirs have consented.

6.

No other petition for a heirship certifcate, succession certifcate, probate or letters of administration with or without will annexed, has been fled. In these circumstances, I fnd that there is no impediment to grant the reliefs.

7.

In these circumstances, the Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), which read thus :- "(a) That delay be condone in filing of Petition; (b) That a Legal Heirship Certificate certifying that the Petitioner along with the heirs mentioned herein at Para 4 above are the only heirs and legal representative of the said deceased under the Provision of Bombay Regulation Act VIII of 1827 may be granted."

8.

Proclamation is dispensed with. The above Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. 9.

Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned shall act on production (B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)