Delhi District Court
Smt.Pushpa vs The State on 15 May, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VINOD YADAV: ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE: DELHI
Petition No.: 850/2001
In the matter of:-
Smt.Pushpa,
W/o Late Shri Jagat Narain,
R/o H/C-11, Nahar Colony,
Okhla, New Delhi-25.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State
2. Shri Bhupinder Kumar,
S/o Late Shri Jagat Narain,
R/o H/C-11, Nahar Colony,
Okhla, New Delhi-25.
3. Shri Jitender Kumar,
S/o Late Shri Jagat Narain,
R/o H/C-11, Nahar Colony,
Okhla, New Delhi-25.
4. Smt.Nitu Kumari,
D/o Late Shri Jagat Narain,
R/o H/C-11, Nahar Colony,
Okhla, New Delhi-25.
5. Shri Shiv Shankar Lal,
S/o Late Shri Jagat Narain,
R/o H.No.45, Mohalla Purbia Tola,
Purwa Shehar Junpad,
Etawa (U.P).
6. Smt.Asha Devi,
W/o Shri Mahadev Prashad,
R/o Village Ummaidpur, PO Dumapur,
Distt. Fatehpur, U.P.
Contd...p/2...
- :: 2 :: -
7. Smt.Durgaish Devi,
W/o Shri Kailash Chandra Kannojia,
R/o Village Bhawani Sarai, PO Madho Nagar,
Tehsil Chibra Mahee, Distt. Kannoj,
Uttar Pradesh.
8. Executive Engineer,
Head Works, Khand,
Agra Nahar, Okhla, New Delhi-25.
.....Respondents
J U D G M E N T:
The facts of the case in nutshell are that petitioner Smt.Pushpa Devi has filed the present petition u/s 372 of Indian Succession Act for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the debts and securities of deceased Shri Jagat Narain.
2. After presentation of the petition, notice of the same was duly given to the general public by way of publication in newspaper "Statesman", dated 12.09.2005, but none has appeared from the general public to file any objections in the matter.
3. Before going further in the matter, it would be appropriate to have a brief introduction of the parties involved herein. In the present case, petitioner Smt.Pushpa Devi is seeking the Succession Certificate in respect of the debts and securities of deceased Shri Jagat Narain being his legally wedded wife (she is claiming herself to be second wife of deceased), while respondents No.2 to 4 are stated to be children of petitioner born from her wedlock with the deceased.
Contd...p/3...
- :: 3:: -
On the other hand, respondents No.5 to 7 are the stated to the children of deceased, born from the wedlock of deceased with his first wife namely Late Smt.Ram Pyari. Respondent No.8 is the department where deceased Shri Jagat Narain was working and had left behind his service benefits. It has also been an admitted fact by the petitioner that she is still residing in the official accommodation allotted to her deceased husband.
4. Petitioner in her petition u/s 372 of Indian Succession Act has duly admitted that respondents No.5 to 7 are the children of deceased Shri Jagat Narain, born from the wedlock of deceased with his first wife namely Smt.Ram Pyari and has no where in her entire petition questioned the status/relationship of respondents No.5 to 7 with the deceased. She has further submitted in her petition that she is the second wife of deceased and her marriage with the deceased was solemonised according to Hindu rites and rituals on 10.12.1975. Respondents No.2 to 4 (who are the real children of petitioner) have already given their ''No Objections'' for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of their mother, i.e the petitioner herein.
4(a) However, respondents No.5 to 7 have filed their objections in the matter interalia stating that petitioner Smt.Pushpa Devi never married with the deceased Shri Jagat Narain and thus, the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 are neither the legal heirs/successors of the deceased nor they are related to him in any manner and as such they are not entitled to receive the securities in the present petition.
Contd...p/4...
- :: 4 :: -
Objectors/Respondents No. 5 to 7 also questioned the jurisdiction of this court in entertaining the petition. However, at this stage I am not going further deep into that aspect and will deal with the same in the later part of my judgment. Since the objections and counter objections in the matter were so severe in nature, accordingly vide order dated 09.09.2004 my learned predecessor ordered for leading evidence in the matter. A brief scrutiny of the evidence adduced in the matter is as under.
5. Petitioner Smt.Pushpa Devi examined herself as PW-1 in the matter. She in her evidence has stated that deceased Shri Jagat Narain was her husband and he expired on 11.02.2001 and his Death Certificate has been proved on record as Ex.P-1. She further stated that first wife of deceased namely Smt.Ram Dulari expired on 06.11.1969 and her Death Certificate has been proved on record as Ex.P-2.
5(a) She further stated that besides her, deceased had left behind his two sons and one daughter namely Shri Bhupinder Kumar, Shri Jitender Kumar and Smt.Nitu Kumari (Respondents No.2 to 4), who are born from her wedlock with deceased and all of them have given their ''No Objections'' for grant of Succession Certificate in her favour. She further stated that deceased made no WILL during his lifetime. She has also proved on record her original Certificate of Marriage as Ex.P-3.
5(b) She further stated that deceased Shri Jagat Narain was working with Executive Engineer, Head Works Khand, Agar Nahar, Okhla, New Delhi and had left behind service benefits with the said department. The reply filed by the said department in this regard has Contd...p/5...
- :: 5 :: -
been proved on record as Ex.P-4. She further stated that deceased was ordinarily a resident of Delhi and the copy of Ration Card in this regard has been proved on record as Ex.P-7.
5(c) She further stated that deceased was having a joint S/B account with her in SBI, Kanal Colony and the copy of passbook of same has been proved on record as Ex.P-8. She has further proved on record copy of one LIC policy in the name of deceased as Mark Z. 5(d) This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6. Before taking up the cross- examination of petitioner, I would specifically like to mention here about ''Mark Z''. Mark Z is a letter of LIC, dated 28.03.2001, written to petitioner by the Divisional Manager of LIC in connection with the LIC policy No.170258978 in the name of deceased. Petitioner was thoroughly cross-examined with regard to this Mark Z. In her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the Respondents No.5 and 6, petitioner Smt.Pushpa Devi duly admitted the factum of receiving of Rs.42,500/- in respect of aforesaid Mark Z (LIC policy of deceased). She further admitted that she has not given any amount out of this Mark Z to respondents No.5 to 7. The most important thing here to note is that petitioner in her cross- examination duly admitted that she is ready to pay the due amount in r/o Mark Z to respondents No.5 to 7, but she further stated that she has incurred the entire amount on the funeral and last rites of deceased.
Contd...p/6...
- :: 6 :: -
5(e) She further admitted in her cross-examination that deceased had a S/B A/c in SBI, Canal Colony, Okhla, which has been proved on record as Ex.P-8. She further admitted in her cross-examination that she has been staying in the official accommodation allotted to her deceased husband, even after his death and she has not paid the licence fee/damages for the same to the department concerned. However, she voluntarily stated that the department can deduct the same from the terminal dues of the deceased. She has very vehemently denied the suggestion that deceased Shri Jagat Singh Narain was not her husband or she had not married with the deceased.
5(f) This witness was also put for cross-examination by the learned counsel for Respondent No.8 (Department concerned), however, the learned counsel for the respondent No.8 did not cross-examine her.
6. This is all as far as petitioner's evidence in the matter is concerned. A perusal of the file reveals that several opportunities were granted to the objectors/R-5 to R-7 to lead evidence on their behalf, however, they did not do so and finally vide order dated 12.04.2007, objector's evidence in the matter was closed and the matter was listed for arguments.
7. The learned for the petitioner has very vehemently argued that petitioner being the wife of deceased has every statutory right to claim the estate of deceased.
Contd...p/7...
- :: 7 :: -
7(a) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that since objectors/R-5 to R-7 have not led any evidence on their behalf to support their contentions, therefore, their objections are liable to be dismissed.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the objectors/R-5 and R-6 has build his castle of arguments on the followings:
8(a) That deceased Shri Jagat Narain married only once during during his lifetime to one Smt.Ram Pyari (mother of respondents No.5 to 7).
8(b) That petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 are neither the legal heirs/successors of deceased Shri Jagat Narain, nor they are related to him in any manner.
8(c) Learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 has also questioned the jurisdiction of this court for trying and entertaining the present petition.
9. This is all as far as arguments advanced in the matter is concerned. However, before dealing with the arguments, I would like to mention here that initially vide order dated 19.07.2006, respondents No.5 and 7 were proceeded ''ex-parte'' in the matter and vide order dated 31.08.2006, respondent No.6 was also proceeded ''ex-parte'' in the matter.
9(a) Thereafter, respondents No.5 and 6 moved an application for setting aside the said ''ex-parte'' order dated 19.07.2006 against them and vide order dated 18.11.2006, the said application of respondents No.5 and 6 was duly allowed, thereby setting aside the ''ex-parte'' order against them.
Contd...p/8...
- :: 8 :: -
10. Now coming back to the arguments of the respective parties.
First of all, lets take up the case of petitioner. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that objectors/respondents No.5 to 7 have not led any evidence on their behalf in the matter to prove their contentions and thus their objections merit dismissal does not hold much water in as much as petitioner Smt.Pushpa Devi in her examination-in- chief as also in her petition/rejoinder has duly admitted that respondents No.5 to 7 are the children of deceased born from his first wife. This clearly stamps the fact that respondents No.5 to 7 are also the legal heirs of deceased Shri Jagat Narain.
11. Before taking up the arguments of learned counsel for the objectors, it would be prudent if we have a brief glimpse of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, which deals with ''General Rules of Succession in case of males''. As per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve as follows:
a) Firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class-I of the schedule;
b) Secondly, if there is no heir of class-I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class-II of the schedule;
c) Thirdly, if there is no heir of of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased;
d) Lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.
Broadly speaking, in case of male deceased dying intestate, his ''son, daughter, widow and mother'' comes within the frame of class-I legal heirs.
Contd...p/9...
- :: 9 :: -
12. Now lets take up the case of objectors. The learned counsel for the objectors/R-5 and R-6 in his arguments has put a question mark on the marriage of petitioner with the deceased. He has very vehemently argued that deceased Shri Jagat Narain never married with the petitioner. I am afraid this argument of learned counsel for the objectors also does not hold much water because of the following:
12(a) Petitioner in her evidence has proved on record her marriage with the deceased by way of Certificate of Marriage as Ex.P-3. Learned counsel for the objector during cross-examination of petitioner never cross-examined the petitioner with regard to this Ex.P-3 and never questioned the authenticity of Ex.P-3. Even a mere suggestion was also never put to the petitioner that this Ex.P-3 is false, forged or obtained through illegal means.
However, during the cross-examination of petitioner a suggestion was put to the petitioner that deceased was not her husband, which she flatly denied.
12(b) As far as the argument of learned counsel for the objectors/R- 5 and R-6 with regard to jurisdiction of this court is concerned, I am again afraid this argument is also baseless and does not hold much water in as much as this court has jurisdiction u/s 371 of Indian Succession Act, as the office where deceased was working was situated in Okhla and Okhla comes within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. Moreover, Ex.P-7 (copy of Ration Card of deceased) also proves that deceased was ordinarily a resident of Delhi. Thus, this court u/s 371 of Indian Succession Act has jurisdiction to try and dispose off the petition in question in accordance with law.
Contd...p/10...
- :: 10 :: -
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, my findings on the same are as follows:
(a) That petitioner as well as respondents No.2 to 7 are all the class-I legal heirs of deceased Shri Jagat Narain and stand on the same footing.
(b) That petitioner as well as respondents No.2 to 7 are all entitled for ''equal shares'' in respect of the debts and securities of deceased Shri Jagat Narain.
(c) Since, respondents No.2 to 4 have already given their ''No Objections'' for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of their mother, i.e the petitioner, therefore, let their share be also given to petitioner.
14. I accordingly order as under:
(a) That the Succession Certificate in respect of the debts and securities of deceased Shri Jagat Narain in terms of Ex.P-4 be issued in favour of the followings STRICTLY as per the below mentioned ratio:
(i) In favour of petitioner : 4/7th share in terms of Ex.P-4, Smt.Pushpa Devi i.e share of herself + share of respondents No.2 to 4.
(ii)In favour of respondents: 1/7th share each in terms of No.5 to 7 namely Ex.P-4.
Shri Shiv Shankar Lal, Smt.Asha Devi and Smt.Durgaish Devi
(b) It is hereby further ordered that the licence fee/damages, if any, to be deducted by the department (Respondent No.8), on account of over staying in the official accommodation of deceased by the petitioner, will be SOLELY deducted from the 4/7th share of petitioner, Smt.Pushpa Devi.
Contd...p/11...
- :: 11 :: -
(c) Further, the job on compassionate ground would be exclusively governed by the relevant rules of the Department and this court cannot order for the same.
(d) Also, the pension of the deceased would be governed by the existing pension rules in vogue.
(e) In addition to Ex.P-4, deceased Shri Jagat Narain was also holder of one LIC Policy No.170258978, which has been proved on record as Mark Z.
(f) ''Mark Z'' was also a security of deceased and I hereby further order that amount of Mark Z be also divided among the petitioner and Respondents No.5 to 7, STRICTLY as per ratio prescribed under para 14(a)(i) and 14(a)(ii) of this judgment.
(g) Since, petitioner has stated in her statement that she has realised the amount of Mark Z, therefore, petitioner, Smt.Pushpa is directed to restitute the due share of respondents No.5 to 7 (i.e 1/7th share each in favour of R-5 to R-7) to them in r/o Mark Z. Department (Respdt.-8) is directed to deduct the necessary amount from the 4/7th share of petitioner granted to her in r/o Ex.P-4.
(h) Further, the Succession Certificate be issued on filing of proportionate court fee and on furnishing of an Indemnity Bond with one surety each within 15 days.
15. Last, but not the least, I have not considered Ex.P-8 (S/B A/c No.01190042387) in the scope of security of deceased Shri Jagat Narain since Ex.P-8 is in the joint name of petitioner and deceased and being Contd...p/12...
- :: 12 :: -
joint holder of Ex.P-8, she/petitioner is free to withdraw the amount from it. Moresoever, Respondents No.5 to 7 in their evidence has not proved anything on record to show that they have credited any amount in that Ex.P-8.
16. No further orders are required to be passed in the matter. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Vinod Yadav)
on 15.05.2007 Administrative Civil Judge: Delhi
Petition No.: 850/2001
Smt.Pushpa Devi V/s State
12.05.2007
Present: Parties in person.
Put up for judgment at 4.00 P.M.
(Vinod Yadav)
ACJ/Delhi
12.05.2007
12.05.2007 (4.00 PM)
Present: Parties in person.
Ld. PO has gone on half day leave after lunch. As per directions, now put up for judgment on 15.05.2007.
(Ahlmad) 12.05.2007 Petition No.: 850/2001 Smt.Pushpa Devi V/s State 15.05.2007 Present: Counsel for the parties.
Vide separate judgment announed in the open court today, I here order as under:
(a) That the Succession Certificate in respect of the debts and securities of deceased Shri Jagat Narain in terms of Ex.P-4 be issued in favour of the followings STRICTLY as per the below mentioned ratio:
(i) In favour of petitioner : 4/7th share in terms of Ex.P-4, Smt.Pushpa Devi i.e share of herself + share of respondents No.2 to 4.
(ii)In favour of respondents: 1/7th share each in terms of No.5 to 7 namely Ex.P-4.
Shri Shiv Shankar Lal, Smt.Asha Devi and Smt.Durgaish Devi
(b) It is hereby further ordered that the licence fee/damages, if any, to be deducted by the department (Respondent No.8), on account of over staying in the official accommodation of deceased by the petitioner, will be SOLELY deducted from the 4/7th share of petitioner, Smt.Pushpa Devi.
(c) Further, the job on compassionate ground would be exclusively governed by the relevant rules of the Department and this court cannot order for the same.
(d) Also, the pension of the deceased would be governed by the existing pension rules in vogue.
Contd...p/2...
- :: 2 :: -
(e) In addition to Ex.P-4, deceased Shri Jagat Narain was also holder of one LIC Policy No.170258978, which has been proved on record as Mark Z.
(f) ''Mark Z'' was also a security of deceased and I hereby further order that amount of Mark Z be also divided among the petitioner and Respondents No.5 to 7, STRICTLY as per ratio prescribed under para 14(a)(i) and 14(a)(ii) of this judgment.
(g) Since, petitioner has stated in her statement that she has realised the amount of Mark Z, therefore, petitioner, Smt.Pushpa is directed to restitute the due share of respondents No.5 to 7 (i.e 1/7th share each in favour of R-5 to R-7) to them in r/o Mark Z. Department (Respdt.-8) is directed to deduct the necessary amount from the 4/7th share of petitioner granted to her in r/o Ex.P-4.
(h) Further, the Succession Certificate be issued on filing of proportionate court fee and on furnishing of an Indemnity Bond with one surety each within 15 days.
15. Last, but not the least, I have not considered Ex.P-8 (S/B A/c No.01190042387) in the scope of security of deceased Shri Jagat Narain since Ex.P-8 is in the joint name of petitioner and deceased and being joint holder of Ex.P-8, she/petitioner is free to withdraw the amount from it. Moresoever, Respondents No.5 to 7 in their evidence has not proved anything on record to show that they have credited any amount in that Ex.P-8.
16. No further orders are required to be passed in the matter. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Vinod Yadav) ACJ/Delhi 15.05.2007