34-MPT-995-2026 (OS).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 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 PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2026.08.28 19:44:09 +0530 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 25th 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 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 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