Delhi District Court
Sh. Pramod Sharma vs The State on 24 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR, ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (NORTH-
EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SC No. :- 27/10
Unique Case ID No.:- 02402C0134202010
In the matter of :-
1. Sh. Pramod Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Vidya Sagar Sharma,
R/o L.I.G. Flat No.87, Pocket-D,
G.T.B. Enclave, Delhi - 110 093.
2. Sh. Vipin Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Vidya Sagar Sharma,
R/o 22, Water Works Quarters,
Behind Old Secretariat,
Bela Road, Alipur Road, Delhi. ....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State
Through Govt. of NCT, Delhi.
2. Smt. Madhu Sharma
W/o Sh. Vinod Sharma,
R/o House No.G-3, Gali No.1,
Sai Complex Ashok Nagar,
Near Mandoli Chungi Phatak, Delhi.
3. Smt. Manju Sharma
W/o Sh. Chander Dutt Sharma,
R/o Gali No.8A, Ganesh Colony,
Chandosi, Moradabad, U.P.
4. Smt. Prabha Sharma
W/o Sh. Satpal,
R/o H. No.A-3,
Sardar Tanker Colony,
Near Kashmiri Colony,
Rajiv Nagar Extension,
Begumpur, Delhi - 110086.
SC No.27/10 Page 1 of 10
5. Smt. Seema Sharma
W/o Late Sh. Vinit Sharma,
D/o Sh. Harpal Sharma,
R/o 1/7026, Shivaji Park,
Shahdara, Delhi - 110032. ....Respondents
PETITION FOR GRANT OF SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE UNDER
SECTION 372 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925
Date of Institution of the Petition : 14/05/2010
Date on which Judgment was reserved : 20/04/2012
Date of Judgment : 24/05/2012
JUDGMENT :-
1. By way of present judgment, this court shall conscientiously adjudicate upon petition for grant of succession certificate under Section 372 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925.
The petitioners had filed the present petition for grant of succession certificate under Section 372 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"), in respect of debts and securities of Late Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma in their favour. The present petition had been filed by the petitioners who are sons of Late Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma. The State was impleaded as respondent no.1 in the present petition. The petitioners have prayed for grant of succession certificate in respect of FDRs and amount lying in Saving Bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Canara Bank and Union Bank of India.
SC No.27/10 Page 2 of 102. Vide orders dated 04/06/2010 a notice of the petition to the respondents / LRs and by way of publication in the newspaper "Mahamedha" were issued to invite objections from the general public, for grant of succession certificate in favour of the petitioners. But , none has appeared from general public to oppose or contest the present petition. However, the respondent no.2 had contested the present petition by filing objections. No Ojections had been filed by the respondent no.3 and 4. The respondent no. 5 chosen not to appear despite service effected by way of publication in newspaper "
Mahamedha" dated 22/10/2010.
Notice of the petition was also issued to the State through DC (North-East), Delhi.
3. The respondent no.2 had contested the present petition by filing objections wherein she denied the contents of the petition and prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
It is stated in the objections that respondent no.2 is the daughter of Late Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma. During his lifetime, Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma from his own/self-earned funds acquired immoveable property bearing No.9127, Gali No.4, West Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and property No.9172, Gali No.4, West Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and he was having his residence and clinic in said properties. Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma had acquired ancestral property being agricultural land measuring 8.33 bighas with Dharamshala and Mandir built thereon situated at Village Kasmabad, Tehsil Bagpat, District Bagpat, Uttar Pradesh. He was also holding several fixed deposits and money in SC No.27/10 Page 3 of 10 bank accounts including in the list annexed with the petition. Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma was suffering from paraplegia with secondaries in dorsal spine and ribs. Ms. Amita Mittal was an associate of Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma and she along with Sh. Bhagwan Swarup Sharma, Ranveer Singh, Amit Mittal and Paritosh Sharma, who are stated to be Trustees of alleged trust namely "Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma Parmarth Trust", got admitted Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma in the hospital but lateron the petitioners had taken him to AIIMS and got admitted him there. Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma had died intestate on 12/02/2007 and left behind all the parties as his legal heirs and they are entitled to acquire 1/6th share each in the estate left by him. The petitioners had assured the respondent no.2 and other sisters that assets / estate of deceased Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma shall be distributed amongst them, to which the respondent no.2 agreed. In the meantime, the two trustees of the trust had filed a suit in the Hon'ble High Court wherein it is alleged that deceased Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma had executed Trust Deed and Will dt. 22/01/2007 leaving all his properties to the said trust. In March 2010, the respondent no.2 came to know that in the said suit an application had been filed to the effect that the parties to the suit had settled the disputes amicably. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 herein entered appearance in the said suit and refuted the contentions in the said application. The claims of the petitioners as well as trustees were illegal and the Trust Deed and Will dt. 22/01/2007 are fabricated documents. Likewise, Will dt. 11/02/2007 set up by the petitioners before Hon'ble High Court is a forged document and even not signed by Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma as he was seriously ill at the said point of time. At the time of execution of Will dt. 11/02/2007, Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma was not in sound disposing mind and he was died on 12/02/2007. It is SC No.27/10 Page 4 of 10 apparent that Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma had died intestate and the petitioners and the trustees had fabricated the documents to stake claim on the estate left behind by Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma. The respondent no.2 when contacted the petitioners, then they refused to give her share. The petitioners set up an alleged Will before the Hon'ble High Court and now have filed the present petition without any reference thereto, which shows the intentions of the petitioners. The respondent no.2 also came to know that some of the FDRs had been encashed by the petitioners in connivance with the trustees of the trust.
4. The petitioners had filed the detailed reply to the objections of the respondent no.2 by denying the contents of the objections and prayed for dismissal of the same.
5. The petitioners in support of their claim led their evidence and got examined Sh. Rajan Jain, Clerk, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kabool Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi as PW-1, Sh. Prem Singh, Sub-Staff, Canara Bank, Branch Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi as PW-2, Sh. Arun Vohra, Officer, Union Bank of India, Branch Shahdara, Delhi as PW-3 and petitioner no.1 as PW-4. PW-4 was cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent no.2.
6. PW-1 in his testimony proved on record details of deposits Ex.PW 1 / 1. PW-2 in his testimony proved on record details of FDR Ex. PW 2 / 1. PW-3 in his testimony proved on record details of FDRs Ex. PW 3 / B and Ex. PW 3 / C. SC No.27/10 Page 5 of 10 Petitioner no.1 himself got examined as PW-4 and relied upon the death certificate of deceased Sh. Vidya Sagar Sharma Ex.PW 4/ A, Will dt. 11/02/2007 executed by Sh. Vidya Sagar Sharma Ex.PW 4/ B and copies of election I Card of the petitioners mark A and B and also relied upon the documents/record proved in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.
7. In the present case, the respondent no.2 had not led any evidence. On 28/03/2012, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.2 that in view of the objections raised in the reply of the respondent no.2 and objections raised in the testimony of PW-4, the respondent no.2 does not wish to lead any evidence.
8. This court heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and respondent no.2 and perused the material available on record.
9. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Banarsi Dass V. Teeku Dutta and Another (2005 (4) SCC 449) that "The main object of a Succession Certificate is to facilitate collection of debts on succession and afford protection to parties paying debts to 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. Such a certificate does not give any general power of administration on the estate of the deceased. The grant of a certificate does not establish title of the grantee as the heir of SC No.27/10 Page 6 of 10 the deceased. A succession certificate is intended as noted above 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 it to the person, he is lawfully discharged. The grant of a certificate does not establish a title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased, but only furnishes him with authority to collect his debts and allows the debtors to make payments to him without incurring any risk. In order to succeed in the succession application the applicant has to adduce cogent and credible evidence in support of the application. The respondents, if they so chooses, can also adduce evidence to oppose grant of succession certificate."
Part X of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 deals with provisions regarding succession certificate. It is well-settled law that the inquiry in a proceeding initiated under The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is summary in nature and the court can dispose of the petition without determining the law or facts which seem to it to be too intricate and difficult for determination. The court can grant succession certificate to the person, who appears to have prima facie the best title thereto. While investigating into an application under The Indian Succession Act, the court need not determine definitely and finally as to who has the best right to the estate of the deceased. All that is required to be done 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 the same being time barred and on the other hand, to afford protection to the properties from being misused. The SC No.27/10 Page 7 of 10 grant of succession 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. The succession certificate is not a final adjudication of the question as to who is the next heir and as such entitled to the estate of the deceased. The succession certificate is an authority to realise the amount payable to the deceased. The certificate holder, however, has to dispose of the amount so realised in accordance with the rights of the persons who are entitled to it.
10. On perusal of testimonies of witnesses and the documents relied upon, it is clear that the Sh. Vidya Sagar Sharma has died on 12/02/2007.
Admittedly, there was a suit in the Hon'ble High Court between the trustees of the trust and petitioners. In the present case, the respondent no.2 has placed on record the copies of Trust Deed and Will in favour of the trust in respect of the estate of the deceased Dr. Vidya Sagar Sharma. On the other hand, the petitioners are claiming the succession certificate vide Will Deed dt. 11/02/2007. The petitioners in the present petition nowhere mentioned regarding Trust Deed and Will in favour of the trust and Will Deed dt. 11/02/2007 in favour of the petitioners. It is only after, when the objections filed by the respondent no.2, then the petitioners disclosed regarding Will dt. 11/02/2007. It is well-settled law that a party, who concealed the material fact from the court is not entitled for any relief. Even, in the present petition, the trustees of the trust had not been made parties by the petitioners for determining the real controversy between the parties and for just adjudication of the present case for the purpose of grant of SC No.27/10 Page 8 of 10 succession certificate. No reasonable explanation has been adduced on record by the petitioners for the same.
This is not a civil suit wherein the civil rights and title has to be determined. The Succession court cannot decide rights and title in the succession proceedings. The succession certificate can be granted only in respect of debts and securities of deceased person as prescribed in Section 370 of The Indian Succession Act and not for any other kind of property. Section 370 (1) of The Indian Succession Act put restriction on grant of succession certificates. This section bars the grant of a succession certificate where the deceased has left a Will. Section 370 (1) of The Indian Succession Act is reproduced as under:-
"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."
According to Section 213 letters of administration and probate can be granted in case of Will made by any Hindu. Hence, in the present case Section 372 of the Act cannot be invoked for the purpose of grant of succession certificate. Citations as referred by the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
SC No.27/10 Page 9 of 1011. Applying a priori and a posteriori reasonings, the petition of the petitioners for grant of succession certificate under Section 372 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 is hereby dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (VIJAY SHANKAR)
on 24/05/2012 ACJ/ARC (NE),
KKD COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.27/10 Page 10 of 10