1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1030 OF 2009. Smt.Ramakanta Waghmare..vs.. Vaishali Chaure ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Dhore, Adv. for the petitioner. Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J. Dated : 7th MAY, 2009. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the the petitioner. 2. The respondent herein had filed an application under Bombay Regulation No. VIII Act, 1872 for issuance of a Certificate of heirship. The respondent had contended that she is the daughter of Krishna Eknath Mankar born to him from her mother Dhrupadabai. Her father Krishna was working in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. He died in an accident on 27/8/1973. The petitioner is the sister of said Krishna and submits that respondent is not the heir of said Krishna. The 2 learned civil judge recorded the evidence, heard the parties and allowed the application filed by the present respondent and issued a Certificate of heirship. Being aggrieved by that, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The said appeal came to be dismissed and being aggrieved by that, this writ petition is preferred. 3. Apparently, there are two concurrent findings. There is, therefore, in fact no reason to interfere in the writ petition. Secondly, the learned judge of the first appellate court has rightly observed that the petitioner did not enter into the witness box to rebut the documents placed by the respondent on record and her testimony. The respondent had filed a birth certificate. Although it was contended that the birth certificate is forged one, the petitioner did not care to enter into witness box and rebut what has been stated in the evidence of the respondent. Petitioner did not examine any witness to show that the certificate of birth filed by the respondent was forged one. Apparently, there is no evidence on behalf of the petitioner at all in the case. The learned judge has held 3 that the birth of the respondent had taken place during the subsistence of the marriage and when Krishna was alive. He has, therefore, taken into consideration the provisions of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act which says that a child born during the subsistence of the marriage should be considered to be a child of the said couple. In view of this, I do not find that the learned judges of the courts below committed any error. There is no substance in the writ petition. It is dismissed. JUDGE. chute