SUBHASHCHANDRA CHANDRASEN CHANDRANATH KAPALEversusSHANTINATH RAMCHANDRA KASAR AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:24932
                                              1
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                965 WRIT PETITION NO.4969 OF 2023

               Subhashchandra Chandrasen (Chandranath) Kapale          .. Petitioner
                     Versus
               Shantinath Ramchandra Kasar and Another                 .. Respondents
                                                 …..
                Shri. Shrikant G. Kawade, Advocate for the Petitioner through Online
                      Shri. R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
                                                 …..

                                             CORAM :       NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                                             Dated    :    JUNE 25, 2026

               FINAL ORDER :-

               .     Heard both the sides finally at the admission stage. With their

               assistance, perused the papers on record.


               2.    Impugned in the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the

               Constitution of India is the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2012

               passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Osmanabad, in Misc. Civil

               Appeal No.101/2012 (for short, ‘MCA’), which was preferred by the

               Respondents against the issuance of Heirship Certificate by order dated

               17.08.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

               Osmanabad, in Misc. Application No.63/2011.



               3.    It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that, the

               Petitioner being the son of late Navalbai, who was the widow of

               Chandrasen Kapale and left behind her landed house property, moved
                                 2
the Application for issuance of a Heirship Certificate. The Respondents

contested the said proceedings by filing their Say and objected for

issuance of the Heirship Certificate in favour of the Petitioner. After

holding necessary enquiry, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,

Osmanabad, by order dated 17.08.2012 allowed the Application and

issued     the   Heirship   Certificate   in   favour   of   the   Petitioner.

The Respondents preferred the aforesaid MCA, which came to be

allowed by the learned Appellate Court. He submitted that, the

Petitioner was the son of the first Wife of the Deceased Chandranath /

Chandrasen Kapale. The learned Appellate Court should not have

interfered with the order passed by the learned Trial Court which was

passed after holding the necessary enquiry.        He submitted that, the

Petition be allowed.


4.       It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondents that,

the Petitioner was not the son of the said Navalbai as is clear from the

observations made by the learned Appellate Court. There was a Will

executed in favour of the Respondents in respect of the property of

Chandrasen.      He submitted that, the learned Appellate Court had

properly considered the matter and passed the impugned order and,

hence, the Petition be dismissed.




5.       The copy of Misc. Application No.63/2011 filed by the Petitioner
                               3
before the learned Trial Court shows that, he claimed to be the son of

late Navalbai Chandrasen / Chandranath Kapale. He pleaded that, late

Navalbai died on 13.11.2009 leaving him as the only legal heir. The

house property referred in the Application was standing in the name of

late Navalbai. For the purpose of mutating his name in the revenue

record, he was in need of Heirship Certificate and therefore, the said

Application was moved. The Reply filed by the Respondents to the said

Application shows that, they denied that the Petitioner was the son of

late Navalbai. They contended that, the Petitioner had suppressed the

factual aspects and prayed for dismissal of the Application.




6.    The learned Trial Court observed that, the relationship between

the Petitioner and Deceased Navalbai was not in dispute. The learned

Trial Court further observed that, ‘no case was made out by the other

side i.e. Respondents that the said relationship was false ’. The

observations in the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate

Court show that, the Petitioner was cross-examined before the learned

Trial Court, wherein it has come that, ‘late Navalbai was the second wife

of Chandrasen and the said second Wife of Chandrasen did not begot

any child from him (Chandrasen)’. This admission is not considered by

the learned Trial Court. The learned Appellate Court observed that,

‘despite the said admission on record, the learned Trial Court granted

the Heirship Certificate after summary enquiry’.
                                4




7.       The above observations show that, the order passed by the

learned Trial Court issuing the Heirship Certificate to the Petitioner was

passed without considering the relevant evidence on record. The learned

Appellate Court recorded the aforesaid finding on the basis of the

evidence on record, which indicates that, the contention of the Petitioner

in the Application that, he was the son of late Navalbai was seen to be

contrary to the evidence on record. Under such circumstances, no fault

can be found with the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate

Court and the Petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following

order.


                                    ORDER

              (i)   The Writ Petition is dismissed.




                                               ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )

GGP