(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8166 OF 2009 Kamalbai w/o. Shankarrao Jadhav, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Sawana, Taluka : Sengaon, District : Hingoli. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Account General (A.& E.), Maharashtra Civil Lines, Nagpur. 2. Santosh s/o. Shankarrao Jadhav, Age : Major, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Sawana, Taluka : Sengaon, District : Hingoli. .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.G. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. (2) Mr. P.R. Nangare, Advocate, for respondent no.2. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 7th September 2009, passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hingoli, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 1/2009, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 herein, and setting aside the order dated 30th October 2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hingoli, in Miscellaneous Application No. 25/2006. 3. The deceased Shankarrao was working with the Public Works Department. Shankarrao died on 19th February 2004. Thereafter, pension papers were forwarded to the respondent for conferring retiral benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner, who is second wife of deceased Shankarrao, applied for heirship certificate. 4. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hingoli, vide order dated 20th October 2006, allowed the application and directed grant of heirship certificate in the name of the present petitioner, Santosh (3) (respondent no.2 herein), son from first wife of deceased Shankarrao, and daughter Renuka. However, it appears that the respondent no.1 challenged the said order by filing appeal before the learned District Judge, Hingoli. The said appeal was allowed holding that the present petitioner is not entitled for heirship certificate. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 5. From the record, it is clear that there is no dispute between the legal representatives of the deceased Shankarrao. Undisputedly, the first wife of Shankarrao had died. The respondent no.2, who is the son of deceased Shankarrao from his first wife, has also filed an affidavit supporting the claim of the present petitioner. In that view of the matter, I find that the view taken by the learned Judge of the appellate court was not proper. The petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 6. Hence, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". However, parties shall bear their own costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8166