Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030007192024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RFA/43/2024 Smt. Rebecca Lalhmangaihi W/o Lalhmachhuana (L), R/o Zuangtui Vengthar, Aizawl VERSUS Sh. H. Zahlira and Anr. S/o V.L. Hnuna, R/o Zuangtui Vengthar, Aizawl 2:Smt. Lalsanglur Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Zoramchhana Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Lalremruata for R1 & R2 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 20.03.2025 Heard Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Lalremruata, learned counsel for the respondents. By filing this appeal under Section 17(2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, read with Section 96, 104 and Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the appellant prays for setting aside the Order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division-V, Aizawl in Review No. 6/2024, A/o Heirship Certificate No. 1428/2023. Page No.# 2/6 [2.] Facts of the case in brief is that after the expiry of the husband of the appellant on 30.09.2023, the appellant applied for Heirship Certificate for the landed property covered by LSC No. CAD-2912/2022 located at Zuangtui Vengthar, Aizawl. As directed by the Court, the appellant made newspaper publication in Vanglaini Daily and since no one had objected to the application, Heirship Certificate in respect of the said property was issued to the appellant on 17.01.2024. However, the respondents who are the father-in-law and the sister-in-law of the appellant subsequently filed Review Petition No. 6/2024 before the same Court claiming that they had not been informed about the application for Heirship Certificate for the property in question and that they have a right to the said property. The learned Civil Judge, therefore vide the impugned Order dated 22.10.2024 recalled the Heirship Certificate issued to the appellant and restored the Heirship Certificate Case No. 1428/2023 for fresh consideration. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court in appeal. [3.] Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel submits that as per Section 31 of the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014 (Inheritance Act), the property left by the deceased father is to be inherited by the sons who are not “In dang” and the surviving wife of the head of the family equally. On the death of the head of the family, the wife automatically becomes the head of the family if she remains a chaste widow and looks after the welfare of the minor children. He submits that out of the wedlock of the deceased with the appellant, two sons were born to them and they both are minors. Therefore, the appellant, as a legal guardian of the minor sons, is entitled to look after the property left behind by her late husband. He submits that the respondents, on the other hand, do not belong to any class of heirs as provided under Chapter- VIII of the Inheritance Act and therefore, they cannot have any claim to the Page No.# 3/6 property in question. [4.] The learned counsel further submits that the property in question was bought by her late husband during his lifetime by executing a Sale Deed on 30.01.2023. The learned counsel submits that as per the sale deed, the land in question was bought by her late husband for a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs. Referring to the Bank Account of the late husband of the appellant under Account No. 30023776915 (SBI), the learned counsel submits that a sum of Rs. 21 lakhs was credited to the account of Sh. Lalbiakchhuanga, the previous owner of the property in question on 27.01.2023. Thereafter, from the joint Bank Account of the appellant and her late husband under Account No. 00000010665651577, a sum of Rs, 5,00,023.60/- was credited again to Sh. Lalbiakchhuanga on the same date i.e., 27.01.2023. He also submits that the extra sum of Rs. 23.30/- is only toward RTGS charges for the fund transfer. He therefore submits that it is clear that it was solely her late husband who had purchased the land in question and therefore, the respondents cannot have any claim to the property in question. [5.] The learned counsel further submits that while allowing the review petition filed by the respondents, the learned Court below came to the conclusion that the respondents have the locus standi to file the review petition and for that reason, the review petition was entertained and allowed. The learned counsel submits that since the respondents do not belonged to any class of heirs as per Section 31 of the Inheritance Act, the said finding of the learned Court below would amount to amending the Inheritance Act itself and therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. [6.] The learned counsel also submits that although the appellant was Page No.# 4/6 directed to make newspaper publication in the local newspaper at Zuangtui but during the relevant time there was no local newspaper available in Zuangtui locality and for which reason, the appellant could not make the publication. He submits that in fact, a certificate to this effect has also been issued by the Chairman, Local Council, Zuangtui. He thus submits that the impugned review petition should be set aside and the appellant be allowed to enjoy the property in question by reviving the Heirship Certificate. [7.] Mr. Lalremruata, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the respondent No. 1 moved to Aizawl from their native village after disposing of their ancestral home and came to stay in a rented house in Electric Veng. The late husband of the appellant who is the son of the respondent No. 1 also was staying in the house with his family. Eventually, the property in dispute was purchased and for which, the respondents had also made contribution. Since they were all staying in a rented house, a small house was being constructed in the said property. Due to the difficulty in looking after the construction of the house and the workers engaged, his son and his family moved to the said property. Subsequently, the respondents moved to Zuangtui in the constructed house and within a few days, the appellant applied for Heirship Certificate without informing the respondents. He submits that at Zuangtui they did not subscribe Vanglaini newspaper and therefore, it was not possible for the respondents to know about the application for Heirship Certificate submitted by the appellant. Soon after coming to learn about the issuance of the Heirship Certificate to the appellant, they filed a review application and accordingly, the same was allowed. The learned counsel also submits that since the learned Court below is yet to decide as to whom the Heirship Certificate is to be issued, the respondents therefore should be allowed Page No.# 5/6 to contest the Heirship Certificate application and the appellant will also be having equal opportunity to make her claim for the property. He therefore submits that the impugned order may not be interfered with by this Court. [8.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. [9.] Facts as narrated by the appellant is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. The documents enclosed by the appellant in the present appeal, which also appears to be a part of the annexures to the Heirship Certificate application includes the sale deed by which, the property in question was bought at a considered price. The learned counsel for the appellant has also tried to impress upon the Court that Section 31 of the Inheritance Act does not give any right to the father of the deceased person or to his sister to claim the property left behind. However, from the stand taken by the respondents, they claim that they had made certain amount of contribution for the purchase of the said property and that it was not solely the appellant and her late husband, who had bought the said property. Besides the property in question, the house already in existence was renovated and extended and for which, the respondents too had made contributions. Having regard to the respective claim made by the parties, the matter will have to be decided by the Court below by appreciating the evidence led by the parties. This Court therefore does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Order dated 22.10.2024 since the parties are at liberty to contest the case and lead their evidence. [10.] It is however made clear that the observation of the Court below that the respondents have the locus standi will have to be understood in the context of the filing of the review petition and the fact as to whether they can have any Page No.# 6/6 claim on the property in question will have to be decided in accordance with the evidence led and in accordance with the Inheritance Act. [11.] This Court is informed that there is an eviction suit filed by the appellant and that the same has been suspended on account of the pendency of the of the Heirship Certificate application case. The learned Court below shall therefore make an endeavor to consider and dispose of the Heirship Certificate application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of appearance of the parties. Since both the parties are represented before this Court, they shall appear before the Court below on 25th March, 2025 whereafter, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law and bring the same to its logical conclusion after giving due opportunity to the parties. [12.] With the above observation and direction, the appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant