MPT No. 101 of 2025 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
The Petitioner seeks the grant of a Legal Heirship Certificate under the provisions of Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in respect of one Mahesh Vrajlal Doshi (‘the deceased’), who died in Mumbai on
06.04.2024. A copy of the death certificate is annexed to the Miscellaneous Petition. It is stated that despite due and diligent search, no Will of the deceased has been found. It is therefore assumed that the deceased died intestate.
The Petitioner is the sole legal heir and next of kin according to Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The reason for which the Legal Heirship Certificate is required is set out in paragraph 9 of the Miscellaneous Petition. Ajit 1 of 2 2 35-MPT-101-2025.doc
The Petition has been duly verified by the Registry. No other Petition for Legal Heirship Certificate, Succession Certificate, Probate or Letters of Administration with or without Will annexed has been filed. Therefore, there is no impediment in law to the grant of relief.
I have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as perused the said Petition. I find that the same is in order and deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.
The Miscellaneous Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as under :-
(a) That a Legal Heirship Certificate of the Deceased be issued under the provision of Bombay Regulation Act VIII of 1827, certifying that Gaurav Mahesh Doshi (Son of the deceased and the Petitioner herein) is the only heir and Legal representatives of the deceased. (b) That issuance of Proclamation be dispensed with.
The Registry shall issue the Legal Heirship Certificate in the standard format prescribed for the same.
The Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly disposed of. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) Ajit 2 of 2
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 06 Mar 2025. The bench was ARIF S DOCTOR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.