Nirmala Shyamsundar Agrawal v. Shyamsundar Ganeshilal Agarwal @
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 s. 8(a)
Judgment
By this Petition the Petitioner seeks Legal Heirship Certificate for all the legal heirs of the deceased.
The deceased expired at Mumbai on or about 8th August, 2017. A copy of the death certificate is annexed to the Petition at Exhibit ‘A’.
The deceased died intestate leaving behind the Petitioner and his three sons as his only legal heirs and next of kin in terms of Section 8 (a) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as specifically set out in paragraph No. 4 of the Petition.
Learned Advocate Ms. Asha P. Nair for the Petitioner submits that the Legal Heirship Certificate is sought for the SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE Digitally signed by SUMEDH NAMDEO SONAWANE 18:49:48 +0530 908 MPT 389-25-OS.DOC purpose of transferring the ownership of the flat from the deceased to the names of the legal heirs as detailed in paragraph No.7.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and the material placed on record, I find no impediment in allowing the Petition.
The requirement of proclamation is dispensed with. Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads as follows : Sanjay
(a) That a Legal Heirship Certificate Certifying that the Petitioner along with the heirs mentioned in Para 4 above viz. (i) Nirmala Shyamsundar Agrawal (wife-widow of deceased); (ii) Shyamsundar Agarwal (son of deceased); (iii) Nirajkumar Agrawal (son of deceased); Shyamsundar Agarwal (son of deceased), being the only heirs and legal representative o f the said deceased under the Provision of Bombay Regulation Act, Act, VIII of 1827.
Vishal (iv)
The Petitioner shall compensate any party who is prejudiced or affected by passing of this Order.
All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (Kamal Khata, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s. 8(a).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 02 Jul 2025. The bench was KAMAL KHATA.
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.