It is mandatory for the Court to issue an heirship certificate, if no objector comes forward within one month from the date of citation publication

Proceeding for heirship certificate can not be suspended till the decision of separate suit for partition filed by the objector

    This writ petition challenges the order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghatanji, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 2 of the Bombay Regulation Act, 1827 for grant of heirship certificate has been kept suspended, till conclusion of civil suit pending between the parties.[Para No.2]

    The petitioner had filed the aforesaid application before the Court below claiming that she was the only wife of deceased Ramniklal Gandecha and that they had no children. On this basis, the petitioner prayed for grant of heirship certificate under the aforesaid provision to be declared the only heir of the said deceased Ramniklal Gandecha.[Para No.3]

    In the said proceeding, the respondent no.1, who was the sister of the said deceased Ramniklal Gandecha, filed an objection. In the said objection, it was pointed out that the said objector had filed a civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 7 of 2016 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ghatanji, being a suit for partition and separate possession, wherein the petitioner, brother and sister of the said objector were defendants. It was contended by the said objector (respondent no.1) that if heirship certificate was granted to the petitioner, she would approach the competent authority for mutation of her name in the house property in which she was residing. It was contended that, according to the objector -respondent no.1, the said house property belonged to her father, in respect of which the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession had been filed.[Para No.4]

    By the impugned order, the Court below has come to the conclusion that when the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession had been already filed by the respondent no.1(objector), the application filed by the petitioner under Section 2 of the aforesaid Act would have to wait final adjudication of rights of parties in the aforesaid suit. On this basis, the proceedings in the application filed by the petitioner were suspended till the conclusion of the civil suit.[Para No.5]

    A perusal of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act and the application filed by the petitioner thereunder shows that the only prayer made by the petitioner is for grant of heirship certificate to declare that she is the only heir of the deceased Ramniklal Gandecha. A perusal of the objection raised on behalf of respondent no.1 shows that the said respondent has admitted the fact that the petitioner was the only wife of the deceased Ramniklal Gandecha and that they had no children. In view of the aforesaid facts, it would be evident that the claim made in the application filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act, even if granted, would not result in recognition of any rights of the petitioner in respect of the said house property and that an application for mutation before the competent authority, if preferred by the petitioner, would be decided as per law after issuance of notice by the competent authority. Grant of heirship certificate would not ipso facto lead to recognition or crystallization of any rights of the petitioner in the house in question. At best, it would assist the petitioner in claiming that she was entitled to the rights that the deceased Ramniklal Gandecha was entitled, as his only heir.[Para No.6]

    Therefore, apprehension expressed by the objector before the Court in the present proceedings was misconceived. The Court below also erred in suspending the proceeding in the present case only on the ground that the aforesaid suit filed by the respondent no.1 was pending before the said Court. The issues raised in the said suit, filed for partition and separate possession, would certainly be decided on merits by the Court and mere pendency of the aforesaid suit ought not to result in suspension of proceedings in the present case. This is fortified by a decision referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Ganpati Vinayak Achwal - 2015(2) All MR 285 wherein this Court held as follows:

Oral prayer of default bail u/s.167(2) can be allowed in hearing of Regular Bail Application u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. if chargesheet is not filed within prescribed period

In the present case, it was also argued by learned counsel for the State that the petitioner did not apply for ‘default bail’ on or after 4th January, 2017 till 24th January, 2017 on which date his indefeasible right got extinguished on the filing of the charge sheet. Strictly speaking this is correct since the petitioner applied for regular bail on 11th January, 2017 in the Gauhati High Court – he made no specific application for grant of ‘default bail’. However, the application for regular bail filed by the accused on 11th January, 2017 did advert to the statutory period for filing a charge sheet having expired and that perhaps no charge sheet had in fact being filed. In any event, this issue was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner in the High Court and it was considered but not accepted by the High Court. The High Court did not reject the submission on the ground of maintainability but on merits. Therefore it is not as if the petitioner did not make any application for default bail – such an application was definitely made (if not in writing) then at least orally before the High Court. In our opinion, in matters of personal liberty, we cannot and should not be too technical and must lean in favour of personal liberty. Consequently, whether the accused makes a written application for ‘default bail’ or an oral application for ‘default bail’ is of no consequence. The concerned court must deal with such an application by considering the statutory requirements namely, whether the statutory period for filing a charge sheet or challan has expired, whether the charge sheet or challan has been filed and whether the accused is prepared to and does furnish bail.[Para No.40]

    We take this view keeping in mind that in matters of personal liberty and Article 21 of the Constitution, it is not always advisable to be formalistic or technical. The history of the personal liberty jurisprudence of this Court and other constitutional courts includes petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and for other writs being entertained even on the basis of a letter addressed to the Chief Justice or the Court.[Para No.41]

    Strong words indeed. That being so we are of the clear opinion that adapting this principle, it would equally be the duty and responsibility of a court on coming to know that the accused person before it is entitled to ‘default bail’, to at least apprise him or her of the indefeasible right. A contrary view would diminish the respect for personal liberty, on which so much emphasis has been laid by this Court as is evidenced by the decisions mentioned above, and also adverted to in Nirala Yadav.[Para No.44]

    On 11th January, 2017 when the High Court dismissed the application for bail filed by the petitioner, he had an indefeasible right to the grant of ‘default bail’ since the statutory period of 60 days for filing a charge sheet had expired, no charge sheet or challan had been filed against him (it was filed only on 24 th January, 2017) and the petitioner had orally applied for ‘default bail’. Under these circumstances, the only course open to the High Court on 11 th January, 2017 was to enquire from the petitioner whether he was prepared to furnish bail and if so then to grant him ‘default bail’ on reasonable conditions. Unfortunately, this was completely overlooked by the High Court.[Para No.45]