Bombay High Court
Meeta Madhukar NayakversusMadhukar Govind Nayak
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that the right to obtain a legal heirship certificate is a continuous right, and, given the unanimous consent of all legal heirs, the petition is allowed despite the filing delay.
Summary
The petitioner, Meeta Madhukar Nayak, wife of the deceased Madhukar Govind Nayak who died intestate on 17 December 2022, filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 2 of Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 seeking a legal heirship certificate. The petition was amended to include the petitioner’s name in the prayer clause and was supported by consent affidavits from all surviving children of the deceased, who waived service of notice. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing should not bar the relief because the right to obtain an heirship certificate is continuous as long as the heirship exists. Relying on the precedent set in Ganapati Vinayak Achwal, the court held that the delay was not fatal and that the consent of all legal heirs satisfied the procedural requirements. Consequently, the court ordered the issuance of a legal heirship certificate in favour of the petitioner and the identified heirs, subject to the amendment being reflected in the online records, and disposed of the petition without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the petition for a legal heirship certificate defeats the petitioner's claim.
- Whether an amendment to the prayer clause to add the petitioner's name is permissible.
- Whether consent affidavits from all legal heirs waive the requirement of service of notice.
- Whether a legal heirship certificate can be issued under Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in the absence of a will.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 — s. Section 2
Subjects
- legal heirship certificate
- intestate succession
- Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827
- amendment of prayer clause
- consent affidavit
- delay in filing
- probate
Judgment
34-MPT-995-2026 (OS).doc
Digitally
signed by
PALLAVI
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.08.28
19:44:09
+0530
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
MISC PETITION IN T AND I J NO. 995 OF 2026
Madhukar Govind Nayak ...Deceased
And
Meeta Madhukar Nayak ...Petitioner
__________
Mr. Shivam Gupta for the Petitioner/Applicant.
__________
CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 28th AUGUST 2026
P.C.:
1. After hearing Mr. Shivam Gupta, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, it appears that there is formal requirement to amend the
prayer clause in terms of adding the name of the Petitioner.
2. Let amendment be carried out forthwith. Reverification is
dispensed with.
Subsequently:-
3. The Petition is now being heard after amendment in prayer clause
to the Petition has been carried out in terms of the leave granted.
4. This Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 2 of the Bombay
Regulation VIII of 1827 (“said Regulation” for short), for issuance of
Legal Heirship Certificate. The Petitioner i.e. Meeta Madhukar Nayak is
stated to be the wife of Madhukar Govind Nayak (“ Deceased”) who
passed away in Mumbai on 17th December 2022. The Death Certificate is
annexed at Exh. - A.
Pallavi Page 1 of 4
34-MPT-995-2026 (OS).doc
5. The Deceased is stated to be the permanent resident of Mumbai.
The Deceased died intestate and despite due diligence, no testamentary
disposition or will is discovered. The deceased has left behind the legal
heirs and next-of-kin being two married daughters, son and the
wife/widow of the Petitioner, the details of whom have been tabulated
in paragraph 4 of the Petition. Besides the legal heirs as stated above,
the Petition specifically states that there are no legal heirs and next-of-
kin of the Petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has invited the Court’s
attention to the three consent affidavits, all dated 25 th June 2026; one
filed by Sweta Madhukar Nayak, daughter of the deceased, second filed
by Sushma Madhukar Nayak, another daughter of the deceased and the
third of Akshat Madhukar Nayak, son of the deceased. The said legal
heirs in consent affidavit have given their consent to the issuance of
legal heirship certificate in favour of the Petitioner and also waive
service of any notice/Citation in the given facts and circumstances.
7. The learned counsel submits that the purpose for the heirship
certificate is stated in paragraph 8 of the Petition. It is required for
transferring the property which stood in the name of the deceased.
8. It appears that there is delay in filing of this Petition. Mr. Gupta
would place reliance on Ganapati Vinayak Achwal1. The Court held that
the right to apply for heirship certificate is a continuous right which is
1 2014 Mh.L.J. (6) 683
Pallavi Page 2 of 4
34-MPT-995-2026 (OS).doc
capable of being exercised as long as object of the right as an heir exists.
In view thereof, in the given facts and circumstances, the issue of delay
would not arise.
9. The learned counsel submits that the requisite Court fees have
been duly paid as set out in the Petition.
10. It appears from the Petition that no other proceedings before any
District Court or District delegate or to any High Court for probate of
any will of the said deceased or for letters of Administration with or
without the Will and there is no impediment in the grant of issuance of
the legal heirship certificate in favour of the Petitioner and the only legal
heirs of the deceased as set out hereinabove.
11. For the reasons and in light of the material on record coupled with
the statements/undertakings contained in the Petition read with consent
affidavits filed, issuance of Proclamation is accordingly dispensed with.
The Petition is allowed in terms of the amended Petition in terms of the
following prayer clause :-
“The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Legal Heirship
Certificate in favour of the Petitioner under the provisions of
Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 certifying that the petitioner
i.e. Meeta Madhukar Nayak, wife of the deceased alongwith the
heirs 1. Sushma Madhukar Nayak, 2. Sweta Madhukar Nayak,
the daughters of the deceased and 3. Akshat Madhukar Nayak,
son of the deceased, mentioned herein above the only heirs and
legal representatives of the deceased.”
12. It is clarified that the Heirship Certificate would be issued subject
to the said amendments being reflected in the soft copy of the
Pallavi Page 3 of 4
34-MPT-995-2026 (OS).doc
proceedings which have been filed online.
13. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
14. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]
Pallavi Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.