Bombay High Court
Kalyani Diwakar Bhatkar nee karuna Ganpat MahakalversusSunita Ganpat Mahakal
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- MILIND N JADHAV
Holding
The court granted the petition and ordered the issuance of a Legal Heirship Certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827, naming the specified heirs and dispensing with further proclamation.
Summary
The petitioner, Kalyani Diwakar Bhatkar, filed a miscellaneous petition seeking a Legal Heirship Certificate under Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 for the estate of the deceased Sunita Ganpat Mahakal. The court noted that the earlier order dated 10‑10‑2025 had been fully complied with and the affidavit of service of proclamation was on record. It held that there was no impediment to granting the certificate even for non‑consenting legal heirs to whom a proclamation had been issued. Consequently, the court ordered the issuance of the certificate naming eight individuals as the sole legal heirs and dispensed with any further proclamation or justification of shares of non‑consenting heirs, subject to filing an administration bond. The petition was allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Legal Heirship Certificate under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 despite the presence of non‑consenting legal heirs.
- Whether further proclamation or justification of shares of non‑consenting heirs is required.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 — s. Section 2
Subjects
- Legal Heirship Certificate
- Succession
- Bombay Regulation VIII 1827
- Non‑consenting heirs
- Proclamation
- Administration Bond
Judgment
9. MPT-901-2025.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
MISC. PETITION NO. 901 OF 2025
Sunita Ganpat Mahakal .. Deceased
Kalyani Diwakar Bhatkar nee
Karuna Ganpat Mahakal .. Petitioner
....................
Mr. Harshad Bhoir i/by Ms. Kasturi Ghadshi Narkar, Advocates for
Petitioner
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Bhoir, learned Advocate for Petitioner.
2. Order dated 10.10.2025 stands complied with fully. Affidavit of
service of proclamation dated 07.01.2026 is taken on record. Same is
in order.
3. Petitioner seeks issuance of Legal Heirship Certificate under
Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in respect of the
properties and credits of the deceased abovenamed. Names of the
legal heirs are stated in paragraph No. 4 of Petition. Grant is sought in
favour of legal heirs including non-consenting legal heirs to whom
proclamation has been issued as per the prayer prayed for in the
Petition. In that view of the matter, there can be no impediment in
1 of 2
9. MPT-901-2025.odt
allowing the Petition. Hence, Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) which reads thus:-
"(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Legal Heirship Certificate to
the Petitioner under the provision of Bombay Regulation VIII of
1827 certifying that the following persons i.e., (1) Kalyani Diwakar
Bhatkar nee Karuna Ganpat Mahakal(daughter) (2) Sanchita Sanjay
Mahakal (daughter-in-law), (3) Sayali Sanjay Mahakal
(granddaughter), (4) Kunal Sanjay Mahakal (grandson), (5)
Rajendra Narendra Mahakal (grandson), (6) Surekha Sachin Pawar
(granddaughter), (7) Nitin Bhikaji Jadhav (grandson) and (8)
Ankita Anil Botke (granddaughter) are the only Legal Heirs of the
deceased abovenamed i.e., Sunita Ganpat Mahakal."
4. Issuance of any further proclamation or justifying shares of non-
consenting legal heirs stands dispensed with. Needless to state that
appropriate Administration Bond shall be filed by Petitioner to the
extent of justification of shares of non-consenting legal heirs to the
satisfaction of Department. Grant be issued within a period of two
weeks from today on all compliances having been effected.
5. Petition is allowed and disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.02.20
18:34:09 +0530
2 of 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.