Ms Kiran vs Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi on 11 March, 2020

[Cites 33, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Ms Kiran vs Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi on 11 March, 2020

 IN THE COURT OF SH HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI,
  ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE - 02, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT,
              DWARKA COURTS, DELHI

RCA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017
CNR No.DLSW010130222017




IN THE MATTER OF:

1.    Ms Kiran
      D/o Late Sh Kanhaiya Lal

2.    Ms. Suman
      D/o Late Sh Kanhaiya Lal

      Both R/o A-89, Pocket -4
      J.J.Colony, Bindapur
      Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 110059        ... Appellants/Petitioners

                                 v.
1.    The State

2.    Smt. Satna Devi
      Maid Servant of Late Sh Kanhaiya Lal
      R/o A-89, Pocket -4, J.J.Colony
      Bindapur, Uttam Nagar
      New Delhi - 110059

3.    General Manager (Admn.)
      Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd
      Khurshid lal Bhawan, Connaught Place
      New Delhi                   ... Respondents/Respondents

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017
                                                       Page No. 1/40
 Date of filing of appeal:                          09.10.2017
Date of judgment reserved:                         12.02.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment:                 11.03.2020


JUDGMENT (DRAFT)

1. Kiran and Suman daughters of Kanhiya Lal on being aggrieved by judgment dated 05.08.2017 (hereinafter "impugned judgment") passed by the Ld. Administrative Civil Judge-cum-Commercial Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Controller, South West District, Delhi (hereinafter "trial Court") in Ms. Kiran & Anr. v. State & Ors. - Succession Case No. 01/2011 (hereinafter "succession case"), wherein the trial Court granted succession certificate in their favour along with one Satna Devi.

2. The trial court by impugned judgement held the appellants and the respondent No.2 entitled for a succession certificate to an extent of 1/3rd share each of the debts and securities of Kanhaiya Lal. The gravamen of the appellants is that respondent No. 2 was not the lawfully wedded wife of Kanhaiya Lal and as a matter of fact, the appellants have urged before the trial Court that the respondent No.2 was the maid servant of their father, who has been erroneously granted the succession certificate inter alia with the appellants to an extent of 1/3rd share each.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 2/40

3. By the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter "CPC"), Kiran and Suman have challenged the judgment dated 05.08.2017 on the following grounds:

(i) The trial court erred by passing the impugned judgement in favour of the respondent No.2 despite no counterclaim having being filed by her. Further, the trial court erred by passing the impugned judgement in favour of the respondent No.2 having complete disregard to the fact that the respondent No.2 had only filed objections to the petition preferred by the appellants herein.

(ii) The trial court erred by nor observation of proceedings seeking succession certificate being that under section 373 of the Indian succession act, 1925 may be summary in nature but only, the right of the certificate of the appellants but not to the respondents.

(iii) The trial court in its impugned judgement erred by determining locus standi, entitlement and share to the succession certificate of the respondent No. 2 without judicially declaring the respondent No. 2 as wife of Kanhiya Lal through a judicial verdict in a suit for declaration passed by the civil court.

(iv) The trial court failed to pronounce a speaking judgement and order, as the impugned judgement is ambiguous.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 3/40

(v) The trial court failed to exercise judicious mind on account of which the impugned judgement is liable to be reviewed, modified and altered by this court.

(vi) The trial court did not consider the evidence of respondent No.2, as in her cross-examination the respondent No.2 admitted that since 22.03.2005 she was present in Delhi. The trial court failed to consider the testimony of respondent No.2 that to reach Akbarpur, Uttar Pradesh from Delhi takes 24-hour journey and thus Kanhaiya Lal could not be present at Akbarpur, Uttar Pradesh on 22.03.2005, as he was present at his office. The trial court also failed to consider the admissions made by respondent No.2 during her cross- examination.

(vii) The trial court in its impugned judgement erred by relying upon the agreement of marriage allegedly executed between Kanhaiya Lal and respondent No.2 at Akbarpur, Uttar Pradesh and made an erroneous finding that respondent No.2 is the wife of Kanhaiya Lal and has legal right to the properties of Kanhaiya Lal.

(viii) The trial court failed to consider the evidence led by the appellants/petitioners, particularly, evidence of PW2 by bringing on record the attendance sheets of Kanhaiya Lal with his employer MTNL. The trial court failed to consider the fact that Kanhaiya Lal was present at his duty on CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 4/40 23.03.2005 and he did not take any leave in the month of March 2005.

(ix) The trial court also failed to consider that the respondent No.2 admitted in her evidence that the voter identity card was got prepared by her only, as the same had her signature as head of the family and the concerned form did not be the signatures of Kanhaiya Lal.

(x) The trial court wrongly and without application of judicial mind assumed the alleged agreement to marriage dated 23.03.2005 as a marriage certificate and made the same principle document for grant of share in the properties of Kanhaiya Lal. The appellants have urged that the trial court failed to appreciate that under Hindu law marriage is not a contract and thus the agreement dated 23.03.2005 purported to have been entered between Kanhaiya Lal and the respondent No. 2 could not have been relied upon, as the same is not a proof of marriage.

(xi) The trial court failed to consider the testimony of Naresh Kumar, accountant officer of MTNL, who testified that as per the service record of Kanhaiya Lal the nominees were Kiran and Suman (appellants herein). The trial court also failed to appreciate that as per the evidence led by the appellants/petitioners that an insurance policy taken by Kanhaiya Lal in the year 2008, which was 3 years after the CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 5/40 purported marriage agreement dated 22.03.2005, the daughters of Kanhaiya Lal were his nominee and not the respondent No.2.

(xii) The trial court failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2 was not the legally wedded wife of the Kanhaiya Lal.

(xiii) The trial court passed the impugned judgement without giving adequate weightage to the position in law that the appellants are the class I legal heirs of Kanhaiya Lal and the respondent No.2 has no locus standi to receive any of the properties of Kanhaiya Lal.

(xiv) The trial court failed to consider that the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge dismissed the probate petition preferred by the respondent No.2 herein.

(xv) The trial court failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2 withdrew money from the bank account of Kanhaiya Lal even after his death with the help of her associate signing as Kanhaiya Lal on the self-cheques and the withdrawal slips, as proven by PW4. It is urged by the appellants that the respondent No.2 does not deserve any relief from the judicial system.

(xvi) The trial court wrongly fixed the share of respondent No.2 as 1/3rd share without deciding or making any judicial finding that the respondent No.2 was the legally wedded wife of Kanhaiya Lal.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 6/40

4. Mr. K.D. Saini, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Karanveer Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sanjeet K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 advanced their arguments.

5. Mr. K.D. Saini, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgement with regard to the grant of succession certificate to Satna Devi (respondent No.2 herein). The learned counsel further submitted that Satna Devi is neither a family member nor related to Kanhaiya Lal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though a sole issue was framed by the trial court, but the trial court failed to give any finding with regard to the marriage of Satna the and passed the impugned judgement contrary to the legal principles.

7. Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Kanhaiya Lal was married to one Sampati Devi, who from her wedlock gave birth to two daughters, namely, Kiran and Suman (appellants herein). The learned counsel further submitted that Sampati Devi died on 25.01.2004 and whereas Kanhaiya Lal died on 16.05.2010. The learned counsel further submitted that Kanhaiya Lal was an employee of MTNL.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the respondent No.2 claims herself to be the wife of Kanhaiya Lal but she was none other than a maidservant, whose greed has no end. The learned counsel further submitted that not only has the respondent CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 7/40 No.2 staked claim to the movable properties of Kanhaiya Lal but also propounded a will dated 11.12.2009. Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the respondent No.2 herein had also preferred a probate petition on the basis of will dated 11.12.2009, however the same was dismissed by judgement dated 09.10.2012. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court erred by holding that the respondent No.2 is the wife of Kanhaiya Lal. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is untenable in the eyes of law, as the trial Court failed to appreciate that the marriage agreement relied upon by the respondent No. 2 ought not to have given any weightage, as between two Hindus no such marriage agreement is lawful. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate and give due weightage to the evidence led by the appellants, as it had come on record that Kanhaiya Lal on 22.03.2005 and 23.03.2005 did not take any leave and thus the question of solemnisation of marriage between Kanhaiya Lal and Satna Devi (respondent No.2 herein) does not arise.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the trial court ought not to have proceeded by passing a judgment in favour of the respondent No.2 that she is also entitled 1/3 rd share in the movable properties of Kanhaiya Lal, as the marriage certificate produced by the respondent No.2 is a fake certificate. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate that CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 8/40 the evidence led by the appellants was crystal clear that on the purported date of marriage Kanhaiya Lal was very much present in Delhi, as he had reported for his duty at MTNL. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate that the respondent No.2 was not the legally wedded wife of Kanhaiya Lal.

10. Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the appellants to strenuously placed reliance upon the latest judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in Rathnamma & Ors. v. Sujathamma & Ors.;1 and Shehla Burney (Dr.) & Ors. v. Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) by LRs;2 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Shagun Sharma v. Asha Rani3 and of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sanjay Mishra v. Miss Eveline Jobe.4

11. Per contra, Mr. Karanveer Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the presumption of marriage between the respondent No.2 and Kanhaiya Lal tilts in favour of the respondent No. 2, as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "Evidence Act").

12. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 contended that the appeal preferred by the appellants is wholly unwarranted and misplaced, as the trial Court rightly held that the respondent No. 2 1 Civil Appeal No. 3050/2010 date of judgment 15.11.2019.

(2011) 6 SCC 529 3 RSA No. 3650 and 3651 of 2015 date of decision 18.12.2017 4 AIR 1993 MP 54 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 9/40 amongst the appellants is entitled to 1/3rd share and granted the succession certificate in their favour. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer any infirmity and the same ought to be upheld by this Court.

13. Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that not only the respondent No.2 placed on record and proved her marriage certificate but also the cohabitation between the respondent No.2 and Kanhaiya Lal is adequate proof of marriage. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that from the cross- examination of the respondent No.2 on 14.10.2015 it is apparent from the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the appellants herein when both the appellants were at their matrimonial house, Kanhaiya Lal occasionally gave keys of the house to respondent No.2 for preparation of food and other household work and the respondent No.2 took benefit of such an opportunity with mala fide intention to grab the property of Kanhaiya Lal.

14. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 placed reliance upon Tulsa & Ors. v. Durghatiya & Ors.;5 S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan Alias Andali;6 Ranganath PanditRao Mali & Anr. v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni & Anr. 7 and Manicherry Saseendran v. P.V. Leela.8 5 Civil Appeal No. 68/202 date of judgment 15.01.2008 6 AIR 1992 SC 756 7 (1996) 2 SCC 226 8 C.R.P. No. 2534/1999 date of order 14.05.2011 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 10/40

15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 concluded his argument on the note that trial court has rightly passed the judgement and there is no occasion for this court to set aside the same, as the proceeding with regard to grant of succession certificate are summary in nature.

16. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeet K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that Kanhaiya Lal was an employee of MTNL, who died on 16.05.2010. The learned counsel further submitted that Kanhaiya Lal did not file any document with regard to his alleged second marriage with respondent No.2. The learned counsel further submitted that on the purported date of marriage i.e. 23.03.2005, Kanhaiya Lal was on duty.

17. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that as per the service book of Kanhaiya Lal, the appellants/petitioners are the nominees and there is no mention of respondent No.2 as his nominee. The learned counsel further submitted that subsequent to the purported date of marriage i.e. 23.03.2005, Kanhaiya Lal on 09.10.2007 had undertaken an insurance policy and as per which both his daughters (appellants herein) were named as nominees and there is no mention of respondent No.2 as his nominee. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that the respondent No.2 did not produce even a single document with regard to her solemnisation of marriage with Kanhaiya Lal.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 11/40

18. Mr. K.D. Saini, learned counsel for the appellants rejoined his arguments and submitted that the paragraph No.15 of the impugned judgement, no finding has been given by the trial court on the issue framed. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the findings made by the trial Court in the impugned judgement are evasive findings.

19. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the relief given by the trial Court in the impugned judgement was never sought by the respondent No.2 and it is for that reason the impugned judgement needs to be set aside by the appellate Court.

20. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent No.2 for the first time on 07.07.2010 claimed herself to be the lawfully wedded wife of Kanhaiya Lal. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent No.2 was lawfully wedded wife of Jayaram and was never married to Kanhaiya Lal. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the trial court failed to consider that even after the death of Kanhaiya Lal, the respondent No.2 encashed self cheques of Kanhaiya Lal and withdrew money is from the account of Kanhaiya Lal. The learned counsel for the appellants concluded that not only the probate petition preferred by the respondent No.2 on the basis of a false will of Kanhaiya Lal but also withdrawal of monies pursuant to the demise of Kanhaiya Lal overtly portrays the mala fide intention and greed of respondent No.2.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 12/40

21. Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the conduct of the respondent No. 2 and of the trial Court is writ large, as the trial Court on an application preferred by the respondent No. 2 pursuant to the passing of the impugned judgment, permitted the respondent No. 2 to amend the memo or parties without issuing notice of such application to the appellants/petitioner.

22. The learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the appeal preferred by the appellants be allowed and the impugned judgement be set aside and this Court may grant the succession certificate to the appellants herein to an extent of one-half (½) share each in the immovable properties of Kanhaiya Lal.

23. Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 sur-rejoined his arguments and placed reliance upon Nasir Khan v. Sarphina George9 that the strict proof of marriage is not required in proceedings, whose very purpose is summary in nature. The learned counsel further submitted that with the admitted position that Kanhaiya Lal and Satna Devi cohabited together, the presumption of them being legally married is drawn in favour of the respondent No. 2.

24. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 concluded with the submission that the appeal preferred by the appellants is neither tenable in the eyes of law nor on merits and the same shall be dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent No. 2.

2019 (2) JCC 1531 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 13/40

25. At this stage, I would like to observe a practice which is not only to be deprecated but also is antithesis to the legal proceedings particularly in adversarial nature of civil proceedings. It is observed that on 12.02.2020, the arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the appeal was reserved for judgment to be pronounced on 11.03.2020. It is observed that on 03.03.2020 without any order and leave of the Court, the learned counsel for the appellants filed additional written submissions not only contended that the reliance placed by the respondent No. 2 upon Nasir Khan v. Sarphina George10 is distinguishable but also making additional submissions with regard to the agreement to marry(sic) dated 23.03.2005 being retained by this Court for initiation of appropriate criminal proceedings against the respondent No. 2.

26. This Court not only deprecates such a practice but also holds that no reliance to such additional written submissions can be placed once the appeal already stands reserved for judgment. Such practice runs contrary to the settled principles of legal proceedings and there is no vested right in any party to file additional written submissions at their convenience and if such practice is not stalled, no legal proceedings shall cease and they shall continue till eternity.

27. Before proceeding further, this Court deems appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 10 2019 (2) JCC 1531 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 14/40 (hereinafter "the Act") with regard to the successions certificate. Part X, Section 370 - 390 of the Act.

28. Section 370 of the Act reads as under:

Restriction on grant of certificates under this Part. --

(1) A succession certificate (hereinafter in this Part referred to as a certificate) shall not be granted under this Part with respect to any debt or security to which a right is required by section 212 or section 213 to be established by letters of administration or probate:

Provide that nothing contained in this Section shall be deemed to prevent the grant of a certificate to any person claiming to be entitled to the effects of a deceased Indian Christian, or to any part thereof, with respect to any debt or security, by reason that a right thereto can be established by letters of administration under this Act.

(2) For the purpose of this Part, "security" means -

(a) for any promissory note, debenture, stock or other security of the Central Government or of a State Government;

(b) any bond, debenture, or annuity charged by Act of Parliament11[of the United Kingdom] on the revenues of India;

(c) any stock or debenture of, or share in, a company or other incorporated institution;

(d) any debenture or other security for money issued by, or on behalf of, a local authority;

Ins. By the A.O. 1950 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 15/40

(e) any other security which the[State Government] may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a security for the purposes of this Part.

29. Section 373 of the Act reads as under:

Procedure on application. (1) If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, he shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing -

(a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and

(b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the court-

house and published in such other manner, if any, as the judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit, and upon the day fixed, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, shall proceed to decide in a summary manner the right to the certificate.

(2)when the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him.

(3) If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seems to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 16/40

(4) When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants.

It is not necessary that succession certificate should be issued only in favour of one person, it can be issued jointly in favour of many claimants; Shanti v. Pankaj, AIR 1995 P & H 14.

30. Section 375 and 381 of the Act reads as under:

Requisition of security from grantee of certificate - (1) The District Judge shall in any case in which he proposes to proceed under sub-Section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 373, and may, in any other case, require, as condition precedent to the granting of a certificate, that the person to whom he proposes to make the grant shall give to the Judge a bond with one or more surety or sureties, or other sufficient security, for rendering an account of debts and securities received by him and for indemnity of persons who may be entitled to the world or any part of those debts and securities.

(2) The Judge may, on application made by petitioner and on case shown to his satisfaction, and upon such terms as to security, or providing that the money received be paid into Court, or otherwise, as he thinks fit, assign the bond or other security to some proper person, and that person shall thereupon be entitled to sue thereon in his own name as if it had been originally given to him instead of to the Judge of the Court, and to recover, as trustee for all persons interested, such amount as may be recoverable thereunder.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 17/40

31. Section 387 of the Act reads as under:

Amendment of certificate in respect of powers as to securities. -- Where a District Judge has not conferred on the holder of a certificate any power with respect to a security specified in the certificate,or has only empowered him to receive interest or dividends on, or to negotiate or transfer, the security the Judge may, on application made by the petitioner and on cause shown to his satisfaction, amend the certificate by conferring any of the powers mentioned in section 374 or by substituting any one for any other of those powers.

32. The main object of the succession certificate is to facilitate collection of debts on succession and afford protection to the parties being debts to the representatives of deceased persons. All that the succession certificate purports to do is to facilitate the collection of debts, to regulate the administration of succession and to protect persons who deal with the alleged representatives of the deceased persons. The grant of a certificate does not establish title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased. A succession certificate is intended to protect the debtors, which means that where a debtor of a deceased person either voluntarily pays his debt to a person holding a certificate under the act, or is compelled by the decree of a court to pay to the person, he is lawfully discharged. Certificates are issued to heirs, non- heirs or nominees.

33. The district judge within whose jurisdiction the disease ordinarily resided at the time of his death, or, if at the time of his death he had no fixed place of residence, the District Judge within whose CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 18/40 jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased is found, may grant a succession certificate, which is a certificate of rights in respect of debts and securities of the deceased.

34. An application for a succession certificate must be made by a petition signed and verified in the requisite manner and contain the particulars as mentioned in Section 372 of the Act. The procedure to decide such an application is enshrined under Section 373 of the Act. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires that the question arising under Part X of the Act must be determined by summary proceeding. When the court is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application for a succession certificate, the court must fix a date for the hearing and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing:

(i) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the judge, special notice of the application must be given; and

(ii) to be posted in some conspicuous part of the court house and published in such other manner, if any, as the judge thinks fit.

35. On the day fixed, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the judge must proceed to decide in a summary manner the right to certificate. Under CPC, the court may allow a party to be added on the condition that he may only intervene at a particular stage in the suit and not caution and order or orders passed before he applied to the court.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 19/40

36. By summary proceeding, it is meant that the Court must decide the question by a short inquiry leading up to and resulting in a rapid decision. The nature of such enquiry must depend on circumstances of each case. Thus, where the court feels that the caution involved is not capable of decision in summary proceeding under the Act, it may leave the parties to establish their rights in a regular suit - See Binod Sahu v. Chandrama Sahu.12

37. When the judge decides that the right belongs to the applicant, the judge must make an order for granting the certificate to him. Even if there is an intricate question of law or fact which needs to be determined in deciding the question, the judge may grant the certificate to the applicant if he appears prima facie to have the best title. Where there are more applicants than one or a certificate, and it appears to the judge that more than one of such applicants is interested in the estate of the deceased, the judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants. In a summary enquiry, the judge is not expected to decide whether actually the debt belong to the deceased or not. It is extraneous to the enquiry and it will have to be determined in the proceedings which the grantee of a certificate commences against the creditor for recovery, if such a dispute is raised.

AIR 2003 Ori 11 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 20/40

38. The Act provides that joint certificates may be granted to several persons if there are various request with respect to various debts due to the deceased. The District Judge may require the grantee to give a bond with one or more surety or sureties, or other sufficient security, as a condition precedent for rendering on account of debts and securities received by him and for indemnity of persons who may be entitled to the whole or any part of those debts and securities.

39. Section 381 of the Act provides the effect of succession certificate. Such a certificate is with respect to the debts and securities specified in it, conclusive as against the persons owing such debts or liable on such securities, and will afford full indemnity to all such persons as regards all payments made, or dealings had, in good faith in respect of such debts or securities to all with the person to whom the certificate was granted notwithstanding any contravention of any other statutory provision or other defect.

40. No decision upon any question of right between any parties will bar the trial of the same caution in any suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and the provisions as to the succession certificate do not affect the liability of any person who receives the whole or any part of any debts or security, or any interest or dividend on any security, to account to the person lawfully entitled to it.

41. An heir at law is preferred to a non-heir. However, there is no bar against grant of a certificate to non-heir, since the succession certificate could be granted in favour of any person. By reason of CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 21/40 grant of such certificate, a person in whose favour succession certificate is granted becomes a trustee to distribute the amount payable by the deceased to his heirs and legal representatives. He does not derive any right there under. The succession certificate merely enables him to collect the dues of the deceased. No status is conferred on him thereby. It does not prove any relationship between the deceased and the applicant.

42. The admitted facts amongst the contesting parties are that Kanhaiya Lal during his lifetime worked with MTNL. It is also admitted by parties that Kanhaiya Lal died on 16.05.2010. It is not disputed that the appellants/petitioners are the daughters of Kanhaiya Lal and Sampati Devi.

43. The parties are at variance that the respondent No. 2, namely, Satna Devi is not the lawfully wedded wife of Kanhaiya Lal and thus has no right to claim any right, share and interest against his debts and securities from MTNL. However, neither party has preferred any legal proceeding seeking declaration along with consequential relief that Satna Devi was or was not the lawfully wedded wife of Kanhaiya Lal. The daughters of Kanhaiya Lal (appellants herein) have till date not sought jactitation of Satna Devi's purported marriage with their father.

44. This Court does not find merit in the submissions advanced by Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the appellants to interfere with the impugned judgment and the reason for such a conclusion would be apparent from the ensuing paragraphs of this judgment.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 22/40

45. The relevant extract of the trial Court's judgment is reproduced as under:

"12. In Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi, AIR 2000 SC 2301, 2000 (3) ALT 35 SC, 2001 (49) BLJR 813, it was held as under:

"The enquiry in proceedings for grant of succession certificate is to be summary, and the Court, without determining questions of law or fact, which seem to it to be too intricate and difficult for determination, should grant the certificate to the person who appears to have prima facie the best title thereto. In such cases the Court has not to determine definitely and finally as to who has the best right to the estate. All that it is required to do is to hold a summary enquiry into the right to the certificate, with a view, on the one hand, to facilitate the collection of debts due to the deceased and prevent their being time-barred, owing (for instance) to dispute between the heirs inter se as to their preferential right to succession, and, on the other hand, to afford protection to the debtors by appointing a representative of the deceased and authorising him to give a valid discharge for the debt. The grant of a certificate to a person does not give him an absolute right to the debt nor does it bar a regular suit for adjustment of the claims of the heirs inter se".

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 23/40

13. The scope of inquiry and procedure with respect to the issuance of succession certificate is provided u/s 373 of the Indian Succession Act 1925. The procedure laid down by the section is summary procedure which contemplates a summary inquiry into the matter of the application. All that the Judge is to decide is if there is good ground for entertaining the application and the Judge should try to confine himself to issue of ''right to the certificate'' and whether the applicant is the representative of the deceased to whom the debt was due. It is well settled law that complicated questions of facts and law involved, should not be decided in summary manner and in a petition for succession certificate, the Court has to only determine whether the applicant is proper person to be clothed with the representative character and the Court has to satisfy itself that the person to whom it grants certificate has got a prima facie right for such a ground. In Ningamma vs Sakamma, AIR 2001, Karn. 339, it has been held that when a party makes out a prima facie case for grant of succession certificate, the Court has to grant the same.

14. It is also well settled law that an application for succession certificate cannot be converted into a suit for title.

15. Thus, the findings on the issue which has been framed in the present case i.e "whether the objector Satna Devi is a legally wedded wife of deceased late Sh Kanhaya Lal" cannot be given in the present succession petition as the scope of the present proceedings is only of inquiry and summary nature. The status if any, of the parties has to be decided by way of proper suit before the Court. The only thing, this Court has to decide is whether the applicant has the prima facie case for the grant of succession certificate.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 24/40

16. In the light of above discussions, my prima facie findings from the oral and documentary evidence on record, are as under:

16.1. The deceased Kanhaiya Lal was the resident of Bindapur, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi which is reflected from the ration card ExRW1/3, MTNL I-Card and Voter I-Card of the deceased and the petition falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.

16.2. The deceased had expired on 16.05.10 which is evident from the death certificate ExRW1/4.

16.3. The deceased has left behind two daughters namely Ms. Kiran and Ms. Suman who are the petitioners in the present case. The objector no. 2 Smt Satna Devi has also claimed herself to be the wife of deceased Kanhaiya Lal and the same has been opposed by the petitioners. The objector no. 2 has filed a number of documents in which she is shown as the wife of deceased Kanhaiya Lal or where the deceased Kanhaiya Lal is appearing as her husband. The objector no.2 has filed one marriage certificate ExRW1/2, Ration card ExRW1/3, election I-

card of objector Satna Devi, LIC bonds of P.A.C.L. India Ltd and passbooks of SBI Janakpuri and SBI Akbarpur where the deceased and the objector were having joint accounts.

16.4. The objector Smt. Satna Devi has also filed one petition for grant of probate on the basis of one WILL in her favour executed by the deceased Kanhaiya Lal but the petition has been dismissed by the Court of Sh Alok Aggarwal, Ld ADJ vide order dt. 09.10.2012 on the ground that the WILL has not been legally and validly executed by the testator.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 25/40

16.5. Though the objector has not filed any decree in any civil suit regarding declaration of her legal character as wife of the deceased Kanhaiya Lal but the documents which she has filed in the present case clearly shows her relationship as wife with the deceased. The documents are not created after the death of the deceased but they also relate back to the year 2006 also. The petitioners have objected to the documents filed by the objector on the ground of mode of proof as well as on the ground of fabrication, but the petitioner could not produce any evidence to show that the documents filed by the objector are forged or fabricated. The petitioner has also failed to show any document or to produce any evidence to prove that objector Satna Devi is not the wife of the deceased Kanhaiya Lal. The present petition being summary in nature does not call for any strict proof of marriage of the objector Satna Devi with Kanhaiya Lal. It was held in Munni Devi vs Angoori Devi, AIR 1999, MP 31 that presumption as to marriage can be raised in a proceeding for grant of succession certificate. Given the kind of documents produced by the objector in the evidence, it cannot be ruled out that the objector may have married with the deceased Kanhaiya Lal. Thus, this Court is of the view that the objector Satna Devi has also been able to show prima facie that she also have a right to succession certificate with respect to the debts and securities of the deceased Kanhaiya Lal being wife of the deceased.

16.6. Thus, on the basis of the evidence produced before this Court, this Court is of the view that the deceased Kanhaqiya Lal has left behind three legal heirs of class1 type who are as follows:

1. Ms Kiran (daughter), CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 26/40

2. Ms Suman (daughter),

3. Smt Satna Devi (wife).

All three are equally entitled to the grant of succession certificate in equal shares.

16.7. The debts and securities qua which the Succession Certificate is to be granted are as follows:

Ex PW4/E ie statement of account no. 424560245 for the period 01.07.10 to 31.07.16 in the name of deceased Kanhaiya Lal reflecting balance amount of Rs. 2,38,167/as on 31.07.16.

Ex.RW1/A ie details of amount payable to late Sh. Kanhiya Lal ie Leave Encashment-Rs 2,09,283/, Pay Arrear-Rs 1,46,166/, Salary-Rs7,798/, GPF- Rs.8,54,916/, DCRG-Rs.6,01,133/and Insurance to be claimed from LIC-Rs 2 lakh Approx. totalling to Rs 22,57,463/ Therefore, the total value of the securities held by the deceased for which succession certificate has been applied for, turns out to be Rs 22,57,463/ alongwith interest if any, accrued thereupon.

17. In view of the aforesaid observations, this court holds that petitioner no.1 Ms. Kiran, petitioner no.2 Ms. Suman and respondent no.2 Smt. Satna Devi are entitled for grant of Succession Certificate U/s 373 of the Act for 1/3rd share each in respect of the aforementioned securities having total value of Rs 22,57,463/ alongwith interest if any, accrued thereupon.

18. Accordingly, succession certificate be issued to petitioner no.1 Ms. Kiran, petitioner no.2 Ms. Suman and CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 27/40 respondent no.2 Smt. Satna Devi for 1/3rd share each on filing of corresponding court fees in terms of Article 12 Schedule I of Court Fees Act, 1870 as applicable in Delhi and Indemnity-cum-surety bond of the like amount, within 15 days from today. Petition is accordingly, disposed of.

19. File be consigned to record room."

46. This Court observes that the trial Court in the impugned judgment has placed reliance upon the judgment pronounced by the Apex Court in Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai & Ors.13 The Apex Court in Madhvi Amma's case14 answered a question that in an order granting succession certificate under Section 373 of the Act would not operate as res judicata to the suit for partition filed in a civil court between the same parties and would be outside the purview of Explanation VIII to Section 11, CPC.

47. The Apex Court traversed through the legal provisions and the legal principle culled out from the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Apex Court observed that under Section 373(1) of the Act, if the Court is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, Court fixes a date of hearing after notice. Section 373(2) of the Act decides the right of the applicant, whether entitled for a grant of the certificate. The Apex Court held that Section 373(3) of the Act provides that if Judge cannot decide such right, as the question raised both on facts or 13 (2000) 6 SCC 301 14 ibid.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 28/40

law are intricate and difficult then in summary proceeding it can still grant such certificate, if it appears to the court, that the person making such application has a prima facie title thereto.

48. Sub-section (3) of Section 373 of the Act provides two things, firstly, adjudication is in summary proceedings, and secondly, if the question of law and facts are intricate or difficult, it could still grant the said certificate case on his prima facie title. The Apex Court in Madhvi Amma's case15 held that necessary collar confirms that the grant of certificate is not a final decision between the parties and so it cannot be construed that the mere decision in such proceedings would constitute to be a decision on an issue finally decided between the parties.

49. The Apex Court while discussing the effect of succession certificate observed and held that the certificate merely affords full indemnity to the debtor for the payment, he makes to the person holding such certificate.

50. From the perusal of the impugned judgment it is observed that the trial Court only quoted the excerpt from the paragraph 18 of the judgment in Madhvi Amma's case,16 wherein the legal principle culled out in Charjo v. Dina Nath17 was reiterated.

ibid.

AIR 1937 Lah 196 (2) CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 29/40

51. I, deem appropriate to reproduce the relevant extract of paragraph Nos. 14 to 19 of Madhvi Amma's judgment18 in verbatim as under for better understanding and clarity:

"14. So, this certificate merely affords full indemnity to the debtor for the payment he makes to the person holding such certificate. Thus when the debtor pays the debts of the securities as specified in the certificate, to the holder of such certificate, then on such payment, he is absolved from his obligation to pay to anyone else as it conclusively concludes his part of his obligation and such payment is construed to be in good faith. This safeguards such debtor or person liable to pay that he may not be later dragged into any litigation which may arise subsequently into say between the claimants. The use of words "good faith" in section 381 reinforces that the decision in these proceedings are not final. When state you recognises such payment to be in good faith it gives clear undercurrent message that there may be in future better claimant but that would not affect the indemnification of the debtor. Thus we find accumulatively because of the grant of succession certificate being for a limited purpose, limited in its sphere, the declaration of title being prima facie, payment tendered is declared to have been made in good faith, leads to only one conclusion that any decision made therein cannot be treated to the final adjudication of the rights of the parties, except such declaration being final for the purpose of these proceedings. If that we so, the amount received by the holder of such certificate can yet be questioned, and in subsequent proceedings it may be held to belong to other claimant, including the contesting party.

ibid.

CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 30/40

15. This can be examined from another angle. The grant of the succession certificate falls under Part X of the aforesaid Act. Its range is between Sections 370 to 390. It is significant to refer here Section 387. This declares the effect of decisions made under this act and the liability of the holder of such certificate. It lays down that any decision made under this Part (Part X) upon any question of right between the parties shall not bar the trial of the same question in any suit or other proceedings between the same parties. It further records that nothing in this part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debts or security to account therefor to the person lawfully entitled thereto. Section 387 is quoted hereunder:

"387. Effect of decisions under this Act, and liability of holder of certificate thereunder. - No decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debts or security, or any interest or dividends on any security, to account therefor to the person lawfully entitled thereto."

(emphasis supplied)

16. This leaves no room for doubt. Thus, any adjudication made under Part X of this act which includes section 373 does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in any subsequent suit or proceeding. This provision takes the decisions under Part X of the Act outside the purview of CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 31/40 Explanation VIII to Section 11. This gives protective umbrella to ward off from the raise of res judicata to the same issue being raised in a subsequent suit or proceedings.

17. No doubt Explanation VIII to Section 11 enlarges the field of res judicata, by including in its field the decisions on the same issue, between the same parties even by a court of limited jurisdiction even though such court may not have the competence of deciding such an issue in a suit. But as we have held above this grant of certificate would not fall within the field of Explanation VIII to Section 11.

18. As far back as in 1937, this principle was upheld and recognised. In Charjo v. Dina Nath19: (AIR Headnote) "The inquiry in proceedings of grant of succession certificate is to be summary, and the Court, without determining questions of law or fact, which seem to it to be too intricate and difficult for determination, should grant the certificate to the person who appears to have prima facie the best title thereto. In such cases the court has not to determine definitely and finally as to who has the best strike to the estate. All that is required to do is to hold a summary enquiry into the rights to the certificate, with a view on the one hand, to facilitate the collection of debts due to the deceased and prevent their being time-barred, owing (for instance) to dispute between the heirs inter se as to their preferential right to succession, and, on the other hand, to afford protection to the debtors by appointing a representative of the deceased and authorising him to give a valid discharge for the debt. The grant of a certificate to a person does not give him an absolute right to the debt 19 AIR 1937 Lah 196 (2) CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 32/40 nor does it bar a regular suit for adjustment of the claims of the heirs inter se."

19. So we have no doubt to hold that any decision made in proceedings under Section 372, for the grant of succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, would not bar any party to the said proceedings to raise the same issue in a subsequent suit. Hence, the High Court fell into error in applying the principle of residue the cadre to the second appeal of the appellant arising out of the aforesaid suit. Thus even if no appeal is preferred by the appellant against the decision of the trial court arising out of proceedings for the grant of succession certificate, the principle of res judicata would still not apply. But we further record, and accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the memorandum second appeal itself reveals that he has preferred appeal against both the appellate orders where it record both appeals, Cases Nos. 237 of 1977 and 93 of 1978. Hence High Court was not right in holding that no appeal was preferred. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute this but submits that no second appeal lies against the applet order in the proceedings for the grant of succession certificate, only a revision lies. However, it is not necessary for us to go into this question as this is for the appellants to make such submission as permissible under the law and it is for the respondent to raise such objection, as he deems fit and proper in this regard."

[Emphasis added by underlining And highlighting of text] CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 33/40

52. I, place reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai,20 the succession certificate was issued in favour of a woman who was not the deceased's wife, in preference to the lawfully wedded wife, but making provision for disbursement of the latter's share. It was found that one S was the only legitimate wife, yet, it chose to grant the certificate in favour of V who was his nominee and the mother of his four children. To balance the equities, the succession certificate was ordered to be issued to V but with the writer that she would protect the 1/5th share of S in certain property and would handover the same to her. As the nominee, she would hold the 1/5th share of S in trust and would be responsible to pay the same to S, and for such a purpose, the court directed that she would give a security in the trial court, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

53. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Sandhya Banerjee v. Shyama Banerjee21 while granting the certificate to 1 of several claimants among three wives and children born to all of them, directed to give appropriate security to be given in order that the amount was realised as per the certificate and the amount distributed among the heirs as per their respective entitlement of shares. The High Court further directed that the actual share of the parties in the debts payable to the deceased would depend upon the decision of the competent court in a suit at the instance of any of the heirs of the deceased or by 20 (2008) 2 SCC 238 21 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 1355 :: (2010) 2 Cal LT 442 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 34/40 mutual agreement among all the eight persons. The High Court also ordered that the security to be given to the learned trial judge would continue till the dispute among those persons was resolved in a regularly constituted suit or by agreement among all eight persons.

54. The raison d'etre for the Calcutta High Court to arrive at the above decision was whether the marriage between the deceased and Shyama was a valid marriage or whether the ones with Sandhya and Renu were legal or not cannot be decided in summary proceedings.

55. The Apex Court in State of Chattisgarh v. Dhirajo Kumar Sengar22 has held that a succession certificate can be granted in favour of any person, an heir or a nominee. The Apex Court held that by reason of grant of such certificate, a person in whose favour succession certificate is granted becomes a trustee to distribute the amount payable by the deceased to his heirs and legal representatives. He does not derive any right thereunder. The Apex Court further held that the succession certificate merely enable him to collect the dues of the deceased and no status was conferred on him thereby. The Court held that it did not prove any relationship between the deceased and the applicant.

(2009) 13 SCC 600 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 35/40

56. The reliance upon by the learned counsel for the appellants on the latest judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in Rathnamma & Ors. v. Sujathamma & Ors.;23 and Shehla Burney (Dr.) & Ors. v.

Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) by LRs;24 of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Shagun Sharma v. Asha Rani 25 and of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sanjay Mishra v. Miss Eveline Jobe26 are clearly distinguishable on facts.

57. In Rathnamma & Ors. v. Sujathamma & Ors.27 the dispute amongst the parties was in a suit for partition and wherein the Apex Court observed that the burden to prove the marriage of Rathnamma with Hanumanthappa was upon Rathnamma, who failed to prove the marriage. It is observed that in the case at hand the appeal before this Court arises against from a grant of succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the scope of the proceedings qua succession certificate is quite narrow as per the mandate of the Act.

58. Similarly, in Shehla Burney (Dr.) & Ors. v. Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) by LRs28 with all due deference to the pronouncement of the Apex Court, the same is not applicable to the case at hand as it is not the case where the trial Court granted relief to a party which was impermissible in law. It is observed that the reliance placed by the 23 Civil Appeal No. 3050/2010 date of judgment 15.11.2019.

(2011) 6 SCC 529 25 RSA No. 3650 and 3651 of 2015 date of decision 18.12.2017 26 AIR 1993 MP 54 27 Civil Appeal No. 3050/2010 date of judgment 15.11.2019.

(2011) 6 SCC 529 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 36/40 learned counsel for the appellant on the aforementioned judicial pronouncement cannot provide any assistance.

59. The judgment in the case of Shagun Sharma v. Asha Rani29 was with regard to not only an application moved under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act but also in a suit preferred by Asha Rani against Shagun Sharma, which were clubbed together for the purpose of evidence and it was in that backdrop the High Court of Punjab & Haryana considered that Asha Rani failed to prove her relationship as legally wedded wife of Kewal Krishan (deceased). It was held that neither the fact of ceremonies of marriage undergone by Asha Rani was pleaded in the pleadings nor any evidence was led. It is observed that in the case at hand the appeal has been preferred against grant of succession certificate in favour of the appellants herein and the respondent No.2 and no separate suit till date has either been preferred by the respondent No.2 or by the appellants. It has been observed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment that the factum of the marriage between Satna Devi and Kanahiya Lal cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 372 of the Act and the same can be decided in a separate suit or legal proceedings.

60. Lastly, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for appellants on Sanjay Mishra v. Miss Eveline Jobe30 does not come to the rescue 29 RSA No. 3650 and 3651 of 2015 date of decision 18.12.2017 30 AIR 1993 MP 54 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 37/40 of the appellants, as the same arose from a suit for declaration that no marriage between Miss Eveline Jobe and Sanjay Mishra, which was dismissed by the trial Court. It is observed that the suit preferred by Sanjay Mishra was that of a jactitation of marriage and wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the trial Court completely over look the case pleaded by the Eveline Jobe. It is observed that the scope of the proceedings not only before the trial Court but also before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was of wider amplitude, whereas in the case at hand the appeal arises against the grant of the succession certificate which has a limited myopic scope and are summary in nature. Above all Section 373 read with Section 387 of the Indian Succession Act does not bar any adjudication under Part X in any subsequent suit or proceeding - See Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi.31

61. This Court observes that the trial Court in the impugned judgment has not only granted the succession certificate to the appellants and respondent No. 2 but also directed them to pay the appropriate court fees in terms of Article 12, Sch. I, Court Fees Act, 1870 but also furnish indemnity bond, surety bond of like amount(s).

62. I, am of the considered view that the appellants/petitioners do not have a right to challenge the impugned judgment since it is only a 31 (2000) 6 SCC 301 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 38/40 summary proceeding under the Act, and the trial Court rightly adhered to the procedure culled out in Section 373 of the Act. Above all, a right of suit is unequivocally provided under Section 387 of the Act. I place fruitful reliance upon the judgment pronounced by the Madras High Court in P.Meenambal v. R.Rajeswari & Ors.32

63. In view of the legal principle culled out by the Apex Court this Court finds no perversity in the exercise of discretionary power of the trial Court by granting a succession certificate to the daughters of Kanhaiya Lal and Satna Devi, who is stated to be the alleged wife of Kanhaiya Lal. This Court observes that in terms of Section 373 and Section 387 of the Act, the option for the appellants/petitioners is always open to contend before competent Court that Satna Devi was not the lawfully wedded wife of Kanhaiya Lal in accordance with law. The present appeal must fail in view of the above foisted legal provisions and well settled legal principles and this Court finds no perversity in the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2017 (hereinafter "impugned judgment") passed by the Ld. Administrative Civil Judge- cum-Commercial Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Controller, South West District, Delhi (hereinafter "trial Court") in Ms. Kiran & Anr. v. State & Ors. - Succession Case No. 01/2011 is affirmed and upheld.

(1998) 1 Mad LW 736 CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 39/40

64. The appeal is dismissed. Consequentially, all interim applications, moved by the parties are dismissed, as infructuous. Parties to bear their own costs.

65. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. Let the trial Court record (TCR) be returned along with the certified copy of the judgment and decree, as per Order XLI, Rule 37, CPC and applicable Rules.

66. File be consigned to record room only after due compliance and necessary action, as per Rules. HARGURVARINDER Digitally signed by HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI SINGH JAGGI Date: 2020.03.12 17:17:20 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi) on March 11, 2020 Addl. District Judge-02 South West District Dwarka Courts Complex, Delhi CA DJ ADJ No. 139/2017 Page No. 40/40

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Ms Kiran vs Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi on 11 March, 2020