1 wp190.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 190 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. The deceased had a kerosene licence and obviously with a view to claim share, petitioners filed proceedings under Clause 2 of the Bombay Regulation Act, 1927. The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad has rejected it after holding that applicant before him namely son's daughter and son's wife do not figure as sharer or residuary. 2. Efforts of learned counsel is to demonstrate that though they may not be sharer or residuary still they are heirs and therefore heir-ship certificate ought to have been given. For that purpose the learned Counsel placed reliance on Section 128 of the Mohammedan Law by D.R. Warma (9th Edition) and table appended at the end. However, petitioners are not in position to point out the share to which son's daughter or son's wife may become entitled to as per that table. 2 wp190.11 3. The findings that son's daughter and son's wife do not figure either as sharer or residuary has not been shown to be incorrect. Even otherwise the superior heirs exist. 4. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the Writ Petition. Petition is rejected. However, if any other remedy is open to the petitioners, they are free to take recourse to it. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 21.01.2011 gas/wp190.11