Delhi District Court
Smt. Poonam vs Vimla Devi on 23 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SIDDHARTHA MALIK: ACJcumCCJcum
ARC (SOUTHWEST): DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI.
SC 44019/16
1. Smt. Poonam
W/o late Sh. Mukesh Kumar Tanwar
2. Master Pratham (Minor)
Through its Natural Mother
Smt. Kamlesh (Petitioner No.1)
S/o late Sh. Mukesh Kumar Tanwar.
3. Master Harsh (Minor)
Through its Natural Mother
Smt. Kamlesh (Petitioner No.1)
S/o late Sh. Mukesh Kumar Tanwar.
All Resident of:
H.No. 839/1/11C, Meera Park,
Near Holy Cross School,
Najafgarh, South West Delhi,
Delhi110043.
.............Petitioners
Vs.
1. Vimla Devi
W/o Sh. Balraj Singh,
D/o late Sh. Mange Ram,
(Eldest Sister of deceased)
R/o Gopal Nagar, Gali No.6,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2. Kamlesh
W/o Sh. Kartar Singh,
D/o late Sh. Mange Ram
(Sister of deceased)
Page no.1 of 8
R/o Matan Hell Gaon,
Nearby Jhajjar Distt.
Haryana.
3.Babli
W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar
D/o Late Sh. Mange Ram
(Sister of deceased)
R/o Gopal Nagar,
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
4. Babita
W/o Sh. Satbir Singh
D/o late Sh. Mange Ram
(Sister of deceased)
R/o Village Ghumanhera
New Delhi.
5. Sunita
W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar
D/o late Sh. Mange Ram
(Sister of deceased)
R/o Omax City Apartments,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana.
6. State (NCT of Delhi)
7. Shri Ram General Insurance,
E8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial,
Area, Sitapura, Jaipur302022.
(Rajasthan) (India)
...........Respondents
Petition U/s 372 of Indian Succession Act for grant of
Succession Certificate in respect of debts and securities of
deceased Sh. Mukesh Kumar Tanwar.
Page no.2 of 8
Date of Institution : 26.08.2016
Date of Judgment : 23.02.2022
JUDGMENT:
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for grant of Succession certificate U/s 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (herein after referred to as the Act), in respect of debts and securities of deceased Sh. Mukesh Kumar Tanwar.
2. Vimla Devi, Kamlesh, Babli, Babita, Sunita, State and Shri Ram General Insurance, E8, EPIP, RIICO Industrial, Area, Sitapura, Jaipur302022 (Rajasthan) (India), have been impleaded as respondents.
PETITION:
3. It has been averred by the petitioners that Mukesh Kumar Tanwar, died on 22.03.2012 at 11:50 P.M in front of Bhagat Hospital, Janak Puri, Maya Puri, New Delhi. It is further averred that deceased was the ordinary resident of Najafgarh, New Delhi, which falls within the jurisdiction of this court. It is further averred that deceased was survived by eight legal heirs i.e petitioner no.1 (wife of the deceased), petitioner no.2 & 3 (minor sons of the deceased), respondent no.1 to 5 ( sisters of deceased).
4. Notice of the petition was ordered to be published in newspaper and accordingly publication was done in newspaper titled as "Veer Arjun" dated 29.11.2016, but none appeared on behalf of public at large, to raise any objections for grant of Page no.3 of 8 succession certificate in favour of petitioners.
5. NOC on behalf of petitioner no.2 filed in favour of his mother/ petitioner no.1, as petitioner no.2 turned major during the present proceedings.
EVIDENCE:
6. In petitioners' evidence, only one witnesses has been examined.
6.1. PW1 is petitioner no.1 Poonam. She has deposed that she is the mother and natural guardian of petitioner no.2 & 3 (both minor children). She has proved the death certificate of her husband as ExPW1/B. She has further deposed that her mother in law Smt. Badamo Devi had expired about in the year 2015. Copy of ration card is ExPW1/C (OSR). She has further deposed that her husband died intestate leaving behind his wife (petitioner no.1) & petitioner no.2 & 3 (minor children). She has further deposed that respondent no.1, 4 and 5 have given their no objection/ relinquishment statement for granting of succession certificate in her favour in respect of personal accident claim of deceased as mentioned in the present petition. Copy of her Aadhar card is ExPW1/D (OSR). Letter issued from respondent no.7 regarding personal accident claim no. 1000/31/13C/75/310 as mentioned in para no.6 of the present petition which is ExPW1/E and copy of insurance policy is Mark A respectively. Certified copy of FIR bearing No. 39/12 alongwith ordersheet and statements are ExPw1/F(colly.). Cost of post mortem report is Mark B (colly.).
Page no.4 of 8
7. Further, in respondents' evidence three witnesses have been examined.
7.1. Vimla Devi, Babita and Sunita, who are respondent no.1, 4 and 5, have been examined as RW1 to RW3 respectively. They gave their no objections for grant of succession certificate in favour of petitioner regarding debts and securities of deceased vide their separate statements. Thereafter, petitioner's as well as respondent's evidence was closed.
8. Despite service and publication, respondent no. 2 & 3 Kamlesh and Babli (both sisters of the deceased) failed to appear nor any objection has been filed on their behalf to the present petition.
ARGUMENTS, APPREICIATION OF EVIDENC & REASONS:
9. I have heard the arguments and perused the material on record carefully.
10. 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 Page no.5 of 8 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 timebarred, 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".
11. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, my prima facie findings are as under: 11.1. The deceased was the resident of Najafgarh, New Delhi which is reflected from his death certificate proved ExPW1/B. It falls within the jurisdiction of this court.
11.2. Smt. Badamo Devi (mother of the deceased) has also expired in the year 2015, as deposed by the petitioner no.1 in her testimony recorded on 29.08.2017.
11.3. Despite publication and service, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 & 3.
11.4. The deceased had expired on 22.03.2012 leaving behind three surviving class1 legal heirs i.e petitioner no.1 (wife of the deceased), petitioner no.2 (elder son of the deceased) and petitioner no.3 (minor son of the deceased). Respondent no.1, 4, 5 (sisters of deceased) and petitioner no.2 have already given their Page no.6 of 8 no objection for issuance of succession certificate in favour of petitioner no.1 in respect of debts and securities of deceased as mentioned in the present petition.
DEBTS & SECURITIES: 11.5. The deceased died intestate qua debts and securities as mentioned in the petition which is as follows:
(i). Policy No. 101047/31/12/004262 maintained with Shri Ram General Insurance, Claim No. 10000/31/13/C/751310 in the name of Mukesh Kumar Tanwar having Personal Accident claim in the sum of Rs 1,00,000/.
Therefore, the total value of the securities held by the deceased for which succession certificate has been applied for, turns out to be Rs. 1,00,000/.
11.6. The aforesaid claim of the petitioners has gone unrebutted and nobody has appeared on behalf of the public to contest the claim of the petitioner. There is also no impediment U/s 370 of the Act to grant Succession Certificate with respect to debts and securities as mentioned in the petition. CONCLUSION:
12. In view of the aforesaid observations, this court holds that petitioner no.1 {who is mother of petitioner no.2 (elder son of the deceased) and petitioner no.3 (minor son of the deceased)} is entitled for grant of Succession Certificate U/s 373 of the Act in respect of the aforementioned securities having total value of Rs.
Page no.7 of 8 1,00,000/ alongwith interest/ dividend, if any, accrued thereupon.
13. Accordingly succession certificate be issued to petitioner no.1 on filing of corresponding court fees in terms of Article 12 Schedule I of Court Fees Act, 1870 as applicable in Delhi and Indemnitycumsurety bond of the like amount, within 30 days from today. It is clarified that petitioner no.1 is legally bound to distribute the aforesaid amount to all the class 1 legal heirs of the deceased, as per law.
14. Accordingly, succession certificate be issued to the petitioner on filing of corresponding court fees in terms of Article 12 Schedule I of Court Fees Act, 1870 as applicable in Delhi. Petition is accordingly, disposed of.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SIDDHARTHA SIDDHARTHA MALIK MALIK Date: 2022.02.23 15:04:03 +0530 Announced in the open court (Siddhartha Malik) today i.e on 23.02.22 ACJ/CCJ/ARC:South West District Dwarka Courts: New Delhi. Page no.8 of 8 Page no.9 of 8 Page no.10 of 8