Delhi District Court
Sanjula Devi vs The State on 14 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MR. MRIDUL GUPTA :
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Petition No. : SC/32997/2016.
CIS No. : DLCT030014662022.
In the matter of:
Sanjula Devi,
W/o. Late Ghanshyam (Deceased),
R/o. 104/B4, Locoshed, Tughlakabad,
Delhi.
....Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State.
2. Smt. Aarti D/o. Late Ghan Shaym,
W/o. Sunder Manjhi,
R/o. VillageBuragpur, Distt. Darbanga,
Bihar.
3. Raj Kumar,
S/o. Late Ghan Shyam,
R/o. 104/B4, Locoshed, Tughlakabad,
Delhi.
4. Hasravati @ Ishrawati
R/o. Village Koilee Khal,
Post Pandey Kodar (Shiv Pur),
Distt. Gorakhpur (U.P.).
Date of Institution : 20.09.2008
Date of order when reserved : 09.09.2022
Date of order when announced : 14.09.2022
JUDGMENT:
1. The present succession petition has been filed stating that the deceased Ghanshyam (hereinafter referred as 'the Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 1/18 deceased' for the sake of convenience) was the husband of the petitioner and father of respondents No. 2 and 3, who died on 07.07.2008 at Delhi. It is averred that the deceased has left behind service dues with General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.
2. After filing of this petition, notice was given to the general public by way of publication in the newspaper "Rashtriya Sahara" dated 19.01.2009, but none has appeared from general public to oppose or contest the present petition.
3. A written statement/objection filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 stating her name as Ishrawati, wherein it is averred that Sanjula Devi, the petitioner is neither the legal heir nor the wife of the deceased. It is further averred that the present petition is not maintainable on the ground of misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary party as petitioner failed to implead the children born from the wedlock of the deceased with respondent no. 4. It is averred that objector Ishrawati is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Ghanshyam. It is averred that the deceased expired at Maharao Bhim Singh Hospital, Kota (Rajasthan) and Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 2/18 not at H.No. B104, BlockB, 04, West Railway Colony, New Delhi as claimed by the petitioner in her petition. It is averred that the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 are not the legal heirs of the deceased. It is averred that the petitioner has not mentioned the date of her marriage with the deceased in the entire petition. It is averred that respondent No. 4 is claiming succession certificate being legally wedded wife of the deceased. It is averred that respondent No. 4 has filed a certificate dated 28.11.2008 issued by the office of ADC, GolaGorakhpur about the legal heirs of deceased Ghanshyam and also about the date of death of the deceased. It is averred that in support of her contention, she has filed copy of detail of family register dated 18.11.2008 containing the family register of Village Panchayat Office of Village Panchayat Koilikhal, Gorakhpur, electoral list of year 2005 which contains the name of Ishravati as wife of deceased Ghanshyam and family medical card issued to the deceased containing the photograph and names of the family members of the deceased.
4. Reply/rejoinder has been filed denying all the averments made in the objection.
Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 3/18
5. In order to substantiate her case, the petitioner examined five witnesses. Petitioner, Sanjula Devi herself deposed as PW1. It is stated by PW1 that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Ghanshyam, who expired on 07.07.2008 and his death certificate is exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. It is stated by PW1 that out of her wedlock with the deceased, three children i.e. two daughters and one son, namely, Aarti (respondent no. 2) Munni and Raj Kumar (respondent No. 3) were born. However, Munni died at a very young age. PW1 exhibited the copy of ration card as Ex. PW1/2. It is stated by PW1 that the petitioner alongwith her children were living with the deceased in a Government Accommodation at 104/B4, Locoshed, Tughlakabad, New Delhi availing all the facilities i.e. medical, housing boarding etc. PW1 exhibited the Medical Amenity Card of the deceased as Ex. PW 1/4. It is stated by PW1 that deceased and the petitioner was holding joint account with Central Bank of India and the copy of passbook of the same is Ex. PW1/3. It is stated by PW1 that the petitioner and respondents no. 2 and 3 are the only legal heirs of the deceased. However, department had informed that one Ishrawati had also presented her claim towards the retirement Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 4/18 dues/benefits of the deceased being the legally wedded wife of the deceased. It is stated by PW1 that the deceased was working as a Technician with West Central Railway at Locoshed, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. In her crossexamination, it is admitted by PW1 that she knew the deceased late Ghanshyam Dass for about 27 years. It is further stated that she got married with the deceased at Village Barmatra Distt. Purnia, Bihar. It is stated by her that he was native of village Kolikha, Gaurakhpur, U.P. It is stated by her that she had visited his native village with him. It is stated that mother of the deceased had already expired. It is stated that the step mother of her husband used to visit occasionally in Delhi and stayed with her for six months. PW1 denied the suggestion that Ghanshaym Dass had a wife, namely, Ishrawati who was residing at his native village. It is voluntarily stated by PW1 that Ishrawati is the wife of her brotherinlaw (Devar). It is stated by her that she got married with Ghanshyam Dass on 28.06.1982. It is stated that the deceased Ghanshyam expired at Kota, Rajasthan at the age of 47 years.
6. PW2 D.C. Shah, JE Grade1, Electric Loco Shed, Indian Railways, Tuglakabad stated that he knew Late Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 5/18 Ghanshyam Dass being a coworker. He is stated that the deceased was survived by his wife, namely, Sanjula Devi. He used to visit their house also during the life time of Ghanshaym Dass. He had seen the identity card of Ghanshaym Dass and the copy of the same is exhibited as Ex. PW2/1. In his cross examination, he has admitted that he has deposed as per his personal knowledge and not on the basis of official record. It is stated that he knew the petitioner since 1991 when she was already married with Ghanshyam Dass. It is admitted that he did not attend the marriage of petitioner Sanjula Devi and Ghanshyam. It is further stated that he had seen the petitioner with deceased Ghanshyam Das living together since 1991.
7. PW3 Radhey Shyam, employee of Northern Railways, stated that he knew the petitioner. It is stated by PW3 that the husband of the petitioner was employed with Western Railways. It is stated by PW3 that the petitioner was residing with deceased Ghanshyam as his wife in a quarter allotted by Indian Railways. It is stated by PW3 that the petitioner and Ghanshyam had two children. It is stated by PW3 that the deceased died at Kota (Rajasthan) and he attended the last Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 6/18 ceremony of the deceased. It is stated by PW3 that last rites of Ghanshyam was performed by petitioner and her son Raju. It is stated by PW3 that he used to visit the house of Ghanshyam. It is stated by PW3 that motherinlaw of the petitioner also used to visit their house. In his crossexamination, it is stated that he is not sure whether the petitioner was married with Ghanshyam. It is stated by PW3 that he does not know the other family members of Ghanshyam except the mother of the deceased. It is stated by PW3 that parents of Ghanshyam and respondent were also present at the time of death of deceased. It is stated by PW 3 that he has no knowledge whether the deceased Ghanshyam had also one another wife, who was residing at his native village.
8. PW4 Ram Niwas Ram, Master Draughts, Electric Loco Shed, Western Railway, Delhi stated that he knew Late Ghanshyam Dass since 1996 as he was employed in the same office i.e. Loco Shed. It is stated by PW4 that he had seen wife of Sh. Ghanshyam i.e. Smt. Sanjula Devi who used to come Loco Shed with a meal for late Ghanshyam Dass. It is stated by PW4 that he had seen Identity card, Ex. PW2/1, but he cannot identify the signatures of issuing authority. In his crossexamination, it is Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 7/18 admitted by him that he simply knew the deceased being a colleague. It is stated by PW4 that he does not know whether Ghanshyam Dass was already married in the year 1996 when he met him for first time. It is stated by PW4 upon seeing the document Ex. PW4/D1 i.e. medical card put to him in the cross examination, that he could not say whether this document bears photograph of Ghanshyam Dass at point 'X'. Upon seeing the document i.e, ration card Ex. PW4/D2 put to him in the cross examination, it was stated by PW4 that he could not identify the photograph affixed at point 'Y' of Ghanshyam Dass.
9. PW5 B.L. Dholpuria, Chief Law Assistant, DRM Office, West Central Railway, Kota (Rajasthan) exhibited the service record of deceased Ghanshyam S/o. Vishnu, TechnicalII as Ex. PW5/1 (Collectively running into 18 pages).
10. No other witness was examined on behalf of the petitioner and vide separate statement of the petitioner, the petitioner evidence was closed.
11. On the other hand, testimony of respondents No. 2 and 3, namely, Aarti and Raj Kumar have been recorded with Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 8/18 regard to their no objections to grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner.
12. Respondent no. 4, namely, Ishrawati tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, however her statement could not be concluded for want of original documents. Thereafter, umpteen opportunities had been granted to the respondent no. 4 for leading evidence in support of her contention. However, no evidence was led and vide order dated 02.05.2017 the respondent's evidence on behalf of the respondent no. 4 was closed.
13. The court has heard submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and has perused the record.
14. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner is the only legally wedded wife of the deceased. It is further contended that respondents no. 2 and 3, namely, Aarti and Raj Kumar are the children of the deceased Ghanshyam born out of the wedlock of the petitioner with the deceased. However, respondents no. 2 and 3 have given their no objections to grant of succession certificate in favour of the petitioner. As such, it is submitted that petitioner is entitled to grant of Succession Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 9/18 Certificate being legally wedded wife of the deceased. It is argued that in support of her contention, the petitioner has exhibited the ration card bearing card no. APL35110527 as Ex. PW1/2 in which the name of the petitioner has been mentioned as wife of the deceased. It is also averred that in Medical Amenity Card, Ex. PW1/4, the photograph is joint photograph of petitioner and deceased. Petitioner has also exhibited the copy of passbook of saving bank account with Central Bank of India which is jointly in the name of the deceased with the petitioner. It is argued that petitioner also led evidence of other witnesses i.e. PW2 to PW4 who categorically stated that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. It is argued that no evidence has been led on behalf of the objector in support of her objection.
15. Per contra, it has been averred on behalf of respondent no. 4 Ishrawati that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased. It is averred that as per Ex. PW4/D2 i.e. ration card which was filed during crossexamination of PW4, issued by Food and Civil Supply department, Uttar Pradesh Government in which the name of the respondent No. 4 has been mentioned as wife of the deceased and names of Manisha and Pawan Kumar Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 10/18 mentioned as daughter and son of the deceased i.e. children born out of the wedlock of Ghanshyam with respondent no. 4. It is also averred that in Medical Amenity Card, Ex. PW4/D1, the photograph is joint photograph of the deceased and respondent no. 4 and the children born out of their wedlock. It is averred that as per the nomination form filled by the deceased, Ex. PW5/1 in the testimony of PW5 the deceased has mentioned the name of the respondent no. 4 as his wife. It is averred that as per the declaration made by the deceased in his office, the name of the respondent no. 4 has been mentioned as wife and Kumari Manisha has been mentioned as daughter of the deceased. It is averred that as per the certificate issued by SubDivisional Magistrate, Gola, Gorakhpur, UP, the respondent No. 4 as wife of the deceased while Kumari Manisha, Pawan Kumar and Urmila are the children of the deceased.
16. It is no longer res integra that succession petitions are to be decided summarily. Sec. 373 of the Indian Succession Act provides that a succession petition is to be decided in a summary manner and even if court cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which may seem to Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 11/18 be too complicated and difficult for determination in a summary proceedings, the Court may nevertheless grant a certificate to a person if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. Thus U/s. 373 of Indian Succession Act, only prima facie case is to be seen and other questions of law and fact which may be complicated are to be decided by a regular civil court.
In the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and Ors. Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and Ors., AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2301, it was held that: "subsec. (3) of S. 373 of Succession Act which deals with procedure for grant of certificate reveals two things, first adjudication for grant of certificate is summary proceedings and secondly if the question of law and fact are intricate or difficult, it could still grant the said certificate based on applicants prima facie title. In other words the grant of certificate under it is only a determination of prima facie title. This as a necessary corollary confirms that it is not a final decision between the parties. So, it cannot be construed that mere grant of such certificate or a decision in such proceeding would constitute to be decision on an issue finally decided between the parties. If that be so how could principle of res judicata be made applicable to a case in a subsequent suit?"
17. In light of abovestated legal position, let us carry out a scrutiny of the evidence led at the trial. Perusal of evidence on record shows that though petitioner has relied upon a ration card Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 12/18 Ex. PW1/2 and Medical Amenity Card, Ex. PW1/4, to show that she was legally wedded wife of deceased, however, the respondent no 4 also produced a rival ration card, Ex. PW4/D2 in which respondent no. 4 is mentioned as wife of the deceased. Similarly, respondent no. 4 also produced the rival Medical Amenity Card, Ex. PW4/D1 which is stated to contain joint photograph of deceased with respondent no. 4 and their children.
18. It is also pertinent to advert the documents placed on record by PW5, B.L. Dholpuria, Chief Law Assistant, DRM Office, West Central Railways, Kota, Rajasthan as Ex. PW5/1 (Collectively 18 pages). He placed on record a letter dated 10.10.2008 issued by the Divisional Rail Manager (Establishment) noting that upon death of employee Ghanshyam, two wives had made claims to his service dues due to which dispute arose and succession certificate was required. PW5 also placed on record a declaration dated 08.01.2001 of Ghanshyam stating that Ishrawati (aged 35 years) and Manisha (aged 5 years) are his wife and daughter respectively. Report of inquiry conducted by the employer of the deceased i.e. Western Central Railway, Kota (Rajasthan) was also placed on record to the effect Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 13/18 that petitioner Sanjula Devi is not the wife of the deceased based upon the letter of Ghanshyam addressed to Divisional Railway Manager (Western Railway), Kota Division, Rajasthan mentioning that Sanjula Devi is blackmailing him and she is not his wife, which was also placed on record. PW5 also placed on record the nomination forms dated 18.08.1994 filled by the deceased for Central Government Employee Group Insurance Scheme, 1980, Combined Nomination Form dated 09.03.2005 for PF, GIS and DCRG and Provident Fund nomination form dated 01.02.1991 filled by the deceased. As per all these forms, only the name of the respondent no. 4 is mentioned as the nominee as the wife of the deceased.
19. These documents placed on record in petitioner evidence itself and produced by the employer of the deceased and being the documents/forms filled by the deceased himself, clearly reflect that the deceased during his life time accepted the respondent no. 4 Ishrawati as his legally wedded wife and not the petitioner. These documents create doubt on the veracity of the testimony of the petitioner.
Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 14/18
20. In support of her contention, petitioner also examined three witnesses PW2, D.C. Shah, JE Grade1, Electric Loco Shed, Indian Railway, PW3 Radhey Shyam and PW4 Ram Niwas, Master Drafts, Electric Loco Shed, Western Railway, Delhi. However, PW2 in his cross examination admitted that he did not attend the marriage of petitioner Sanjula Devi with Ghanshyam and had simply seen the petitioner and deceased living together since 1991. Upon being confronted with the ration card (Annexure P5) containing name of wife of deceased as Ishrawati Devi and being confronted with the Medical Facility Card (Annexure P6) containing joint photograph of deceased with respondent no. 4 and their children, he identified the photograph of deceased Ghanshyam as correct in both the documents. However, he did not offer any explanation as to these documents showing respondent no. 4 as wife of deceased.
21. As far as testimony of PW3 is concerned, in his examinationinchief he stated that the last rites of Ghanshyam was performed by the petitioner and her son Raju. However, in his crossexamination, he stated that the respondent was also present at the time of death of Ghanshyam. He also admitted that Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 15/18 he was not sure whether the petitioner was married with Ghanshyam.
22. PW4 in his crossexamination stated that he simply knew Ghanshyam Dass as a colleague and had no relationship with him. He could not identify the photograph of Ghanshyam Dass on the Medical Facility Card, Ex. PW4/D1 (i.e. same as Annexure P6) and on the ration card, Ex. PW4/D2 (i.e. same as Annexure P5).
23. Perusal of the testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW4 reveals that none of them have testified as to attending the marriage of deceased with petitioner. They have deposed merely on the basis of having seeing the petitioner reside with deceased Ghanshyam and could not even state with certainty that petitioner was married with Ghanshyam. Furthermore, none of them have produced any documents in support of the case of the petitioner being the legally wedded wife of Ghanshyam. Hence, their testimonies do not inspire the confidence of the Court.
24. In the present petition, petitioner Sanjula Devi and respondent no. 4 Ishrawati are both claiming themselves to be the Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 16/18 legally wedded wives of the deceased. Since the petitioner has filed the present petition, the onus to prove her case lies on the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that she alone is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and Aarti and Raj Kumar were born out of her wedlock with deceased. However, from the discussion above it is clear that the petitioner has not filed any credible document to prove that petitioner got married with the deceased. Furthermore, petitioner even did not mention the date of her marriage with the deceased in the entire petition and disclosed the same only in her crossexamination. The petitioner neither filed any documents to show that she got married with the deceased nor any document to show that respondents no. 2 and 3 were born out of the wedlock of the deceased with the petitioner. Petitioner also could not file any cogent or reliable document to show that respondents no. 2 and 3 are the children of deceased.
25. Since, there is no credible material on record to show that the petitioner was legally wedded wife of the deceased or that respondents no. 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased, hence, the present petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the court holds that petitioner and respondents no. 2 and 3 are not entitled Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 17/18 to get any share in the service dues of the deceased in the present succession petition.
26. It is to be noted that the respondent no. 4 has not filed any succession petition and has not sought any succession order in her favour qua service dues of the deceased, it is hereby held that once the succession certificate petition of the petitioner is dismissed as she is not entitled to the debts and securities of deceased, the respondent No. 4 has to file an independent petition for succession certificate for claiming the service dues left behind by the deceased, reliance being placed upon a case decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court cited as 2014 SCC OnLine Del 620.
The petition is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
MRIDUL by MRIDUL
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2022.09.14
15:15:37 +0530
Announced in the open (MRIDUL GUPTA)
court on 14.09.2022 Administrative Civil Judgecum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi.
Petition no. SC/32997/16 Sanjula Devi Vs. The State & Ors. 18/18