Delhi District Court
Smt. Pushpa Devi vs The State on 6 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR : LD.
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Petition No. : SC/32749/16
In the matter of:
Smt. Pushpa Devi,
W/o. Late Sh. Sat Pal Singh,
R/o. WZ488, Naraina Village,
New Delhi110028.
And
RZ155/1, Gali No. 5,
Durgapark, New Delhi.
....Petitioners.
Versus
1 The State.
2 Chhotan Lal (deceased)
3 Smt. Phoolwati (predeceased)
a) Smt. Santosh,
w/o. Sh. Ved Prakash @ Vedu,
S/o. Late Pheru Singh,
R/o. Village Baroda, Tehsil Budhana,
Distt. Muzaffarnagar, U.P.
b) Smt. Leelawati,
W/o. Sh. Rakesh,
S/o. Sh. Sukhbir Singh,
R/o. Village Baroda, Tehsil Budhana,
Distt. Muzaffarnagar,U.P.
Petition no. SC/32794/16
4 Sh. Vijay Pal Singh,
S/o. Late Chhotan Lal,
5 Sh. Ashok Kumar @ Billu,
S/o. Late Chhotan Lal,
6 Sh. Sunil Kumar,
S/o. Late Sh. Chhottan Lal,
All R/o. Village Nangala Raya,
Tehsil Baraut, P.S. Binoli,
Distt. Baghpat, U.P.
.....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 18.03.2002 Date of order when reserved : 25.05.2018 Date of order when announced : 06.06.2018 J U D G M E N T : 1 Vide present order, the undersigned shall decide a petition
U/s. 372 of Indian Succession Act qua the debts and securities (only the service benefits in this case) of deceased Sh. Satpal Singh, who died in June,1997. The petition was filed by Smt. Pushpa Devi claiming to be the wife of the deceased. Her petition has been objected by respondents no. 2 to 6, who are parents and brother of the deceased Satpal. They raised the objections that petitioner was not the wife of the deceased Satpal.
Petition no. SC/32794/16 2 Notice of the petition was given to the general public by way of publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' dated 06.09.2003, but none has appeared from general public to oppose or contest the present petition.
3 During the pendency of the petition, objector Phoolwati (mother of the deceased) expired on 15.12.2008 and her LRs namely vijay Pal, Ashok Kumar, Sunil Kumar, Santosh and Leeladevi were substituted vide order dated 06.08.2011. Later on, respondent Chhotan Lal (father of the deceased) also expired and his LRs were also impleaded.
4 In the reply/written statement filed on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 6, it was averred that the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi is not the wife of the deceased, rather she is the wife of one Ramesh son of Ram Chandra. It is contended that due to some dispute with her husband Ramesh, the petitioner deserted her husband Petition no. SC/32794/16 Ramesh. Since, petitioner was not having any source of livelihood therefore Sh. Satpal Singh kept her as Aaya in his house in lieu of this he gave shelter to her. It is stated that house no. 155/1, Durga Park is owned by Sh. Chotan Lal (father of the deceased), however, deceased used to live in the same and a room in that house was provided to the petitioner.
5 In the counter reply filed on behalf of PWD Division No. XII, it is stated that petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi was in receipt of maintenance allowance of Rs.400/ from Sh. Satpal Singh (deceased) which shows that either she was divorced or divorced proceeding were continuing in the criminal court. It is stated that as per FIR No. 517/1996, Police Station Dabri petitioner was residing separately since 199394. It is stated the deceased was under suspension at the time of his death as he was arrested and have been in judicial custody in FIR No. 517/1996. It is also mentioned that vide order dated 02.05.2000, Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioner to submit certain documents with the department for settlement of her case. Petition no. SC/32794/16 Later on, reply dated 05.02.2018, it is stated that no one approached the department to claim the family pension. It is further stated that service book of the deceased has been reconstructed as the original was lost. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.12,31,210/ including arrears of family pension from 15.06.1997 till 31.01.2018 amounting to Rs.10,75,824/ are the service benefits of the deceased. 6 In order to substantiate her case, petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi deposed that her marriage was solemnized with Late Sh. Sat Pal Singh S/o. Chhotan Lal R/o. Village Nangla Raya, PO Bijwara, Tehsil Baraut, District Baghpat, U.P. according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 04.07.1973 at village Barka, Teh. Baraut, Distt. Baghpat, U.P. It is stated that no divorce was ever taken place between her and her husband in any manner till the husband Sat Pal Singh was alive. It is stated that her husband namely Sat Pal Singh expired in June, 1997 (his death certificate is Ex. PW1/1). It is stated that deceased was working with D.D.U. Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi as Khalasi. After the death of the deceased, she filed a petition before Petition no. SC/32794/16 the Central Administrative Tribunal for job on compassionate ground and the same has been decided on 02.05.2000 (the copy of order is Ex. PW1/2). It is stated that due to some temperamental difference she started living separately from the deceased, thereafter she filed a petition U/s. 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and Rs.400/ p.m. was granted as interim maintenance to her (Copy of application of restoration of execution alongwith affidavit is Ex. PW1/3). She exhibited the copy of application/representation to the Ld. Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi for compliance of order dated 02.05.200, passed by CAT Principal Bench, as Ex. PW1/5. It is stated that on 27.08.1996, her husband, Sh. Chhotey Lal (respondent no. 2), Sh. Ashok Pal and Sh. Vijay Pal attacked on her due to which she met injuries and was admitted in the hospital thereafter a case was registered (Copy of FIR is Ex. PW1/6). She exhibited the copy of DD No. 17B dated 19.03.1996 of PS Tilak Nagar, New Delhi as Ex. PW1/7. She exhibited a letter written by her husband as Ex. PW1/8. It is stated that she is the nominee in the provident fund form being wife of the deceased and she exhibited the copy of the said form as Ex. Petition no. SC/32794/16 PW1/9. She filed on record certain letters written by the deceased to various persons as Ex. PW1/10 to Ex. PW1/14. She filed on record information given by deceased to SHO Delhi Cantt as Ex. PW1/15. It is stated that in the GPF passbook of the deceased her name has been mentioned as wife. It is stated that the identity card issued by Central Govt. Health Scheme, Ministry of Health, Delhi is showing the relationship between her and the deceased as husband and wife. In her cross examination, she admitted the suggestion that she married the deceased on 04.07.1973 in village Barka. It is stated by her that her marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and ceremony. This witness has shown her ignorance to any person namely Sh Ramesh Chand R/o. Nangla. She denied the suggestion that deceased kept her as maid servant.
7 PW2, Sh. Parsadey Lal deposed that he knows Smt. Pushpa Devi. It is stated that petitioner was married with Late Sh. Sat Pal Singh S/o. Sh. Chhotan Lal on 04.07.1973 at Village Barka, Distt. Baghpat, UP according to Hindu rites and customs. It is stated that Petition no. SC/32794/16 Saptapadi (phera) of both of them were performed by the Purohit/Pandit of his village namely Mahender Sharma on 04.07.1973. It is stated that he was present in their marriage. It is stated that he also knows the fatherinlaw of Smt. Pushpa Devi. It is stated that this was the first marriage of Smt. Pushpa. In his cross examination, he accepted the suggestion that petitioner used to do work of Choka Bartan in the house of the deceased in the capacity of his wife. 8 PW3 Sh. Puran Chand deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW2 Sh. Parsadey Lal.
9 PW3 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Office Superintendent from office of Executive Engineer (E), PWD Elect. Maintenance Division, Vikas Puri, New Delhi deposed that Sh. Satpal Singh S/o. Sh. Chhote Lal had never worked in their office. It is stated that Electrical Division XII is renamed as B244, PWD, LNJP, New Delhi document in this regard is Ex. PW4/1.
Petition no. SC/32794/16 10 PW5 Sh. Jatinder Singh, UDC, PWD, Division B244, submitted that the original service record of the deceased is with PWD, ED XII, however, he brought certain documents which were exhibited as Ex. PW5/1.
11 PW6 Sh. Ram Kumar from PWD, N151, submitted that deceased never worked in their office and they have no record qua him.
12 No other petitioner's witness examined. Petitioner's evidence was closed.
13 Respondent Chottan Lal examined as RW1. It is stated by him that petitioner is not the wife of the deceased, rather she is the wife of one Ramesh son of Ram Chandra. It is stated that due to some dispute with her husband Ramesh, the petitioner deserted her husband Ramesh. Since, petitioner was not having any source of livelihood therefore Sh. Satpal Singh kept her as Aaya in his house in lieu of this Petition no. SC/32794/16 he gave shelter to her at her request. In his cross examination, it is stated by him that deceased never got married with any one. 14 RW2 Sh, Ram Kumar R/o. Village Nangla Rawa, Teh. Baraut, Distt. Baghpat, UP deposed on the same lines as RW1. In his cross examination, he could not tell the date, month or year of marriage between petitioner and said Ramesh. This witness could not identify deceased Sat Pal in the photograph Ex. RW5/X1. It is stated by him that he had not seen deceased Satpal for 2025 years. He could not tell where Satpal had died. In his further cross, it is admitted by him that Satpal was married with Pushpa.
15 RW5 Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o. Chhottan Lal deposed on the same lines as RW1 Chottan Lal. In his cross examination, it is stated by him that petitioner never came in contact with the deceased. It is stated by him that he has no knowledge whether deceased ever helped the petitioner. He had identified his brother deceased Satpal in the photograph Ex. RW5/X1 at mark A. Petition no. SC/32794/16 16 RW6 Sh. Rajbir also deposed on the same lines as RW1. In his cross examination, it is stated by him that he had heard from the villagers that Ramesh's wife was Pushpa. It is stated by him that he did not attend the marriage of Ramesh and Pushpa. It is stated by him that he never saw the face of Pushpa. This witness failed to identify Satpal in the photograph put to him.
17 No other respondent's witness was examined and respondent's evidence was closed.
18 The court heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Contention of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased hence she is entitled to the debts and securities I,.e. Service benefits left by the deceased. Ld. Counsel for petitioner relied on a judgment titled Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani 2016 X AD (SC) 149 wherein it was held that family pension of a deceased Petition no. SC/32794/16 official has to be paid only to his wife and not to his mother. 19 Per contra, it is argued on behalf of the objectors that the factum of marriage between deceased and petitioner has not been proved on record. It is stated that the fact that respondents are family members of the deceased remains uncontroverted hence they are entitled to succeed to his service benefits.
20 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 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 Petition no. SC/32794/16 decided by a regular civil court.
In the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and others, Appellants Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and others, Respondents. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2301=2000 AIR SCW 2432 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 the principle of res judicata cannot be made applicable."
21 In the present petition, there are two contesting sets of alleged LRs of the deceased. The undersigned would decide their claim one by one.
Petition no. SC/32794/16 CLAIM OF PETITIONER PUSHPA DEVI 22 It is claimed by petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi that she married the deceased on 04.07.1973 at Village Barka, Tehsil Barod, Baghpat, UP. It is also stated by her that she was never divorced by the deceased. Though it is stated that due to some temperamental differences she started living separately and also filed a petition U/s. 125 Cr.P.C. against the deceased which was ordered in her favour. It is also stated by her that on 27.08.1998 deceased alongwith his brothers and father attacked her consequent to that she registered an FIR No. 517/96 with Police Station Dabri, Delhi. Per contra, it is orally deposed by all the respondent's witnesses that petitioner was not the wife of the deceased, rather she was deserted wife of one Sh. Ramesh, it is further stated that after being deserted by her husband she sought help from the deceased, who kept her as Aaya in his house and also gave her a room in his house to live. The following facts shows that the contention of the petitioner is more probable :
a) the petitioner has filed on record various documents showing herself to be the wife of the deceased. She has Petition no. SC/32794/16 also filed a number of letters written by the deceased to his family members wherein he has stated that the deceased is his wife. It is to be noted that no suggestion was given to this witness in her cross examination that the said documents are forged and fabricated. In fact, no question was raised regarding admissibility, manner of proof or genuineness of these documents on behalf of the respondent during the cross examination of this witness
b) It is stated by the petitioner that during the life time of the deceased, she filed a petition U/s. 125 Cr.P.C. against the deceased which was ordered in her favour this fact was also confirmed by the department of the deceased in their written statement as it was stated in their written statement that they were attaching a sum of Rs.400/ from the salary of the deceased for payment of maintenance to the petitioner as per the Court's order.
c) The petitioner has filed an FIR bearing no.
517/96 wherein she categorically stated that her husband Satpal his father Chhotan Lal and his brothers attacked her. This FIR was lodged way back in 1996 much prior to the death of the deceased, said FIR Petition no. SC/32794/16 makes it clear that though there was some dispute between deceased and the petitioner, however it also establishes that she was everywhere mentioning the deceased as her husband.
d) She also filed on record copy of a DD entry No.17 B dated 19/03 or 05/1996 qua a complaint made by the deceased regarding an attack on him by brothers of the petitioner at Patiala House court in that complaint the deceased has mentioned the petitioner as his wife.
e) It is admitted position stated in examination in chief by all the respondent's witness that petitioner was residing in the house of the deceased.
f) From the above stated proceeding U/s. 125 Cr.P.C. And the FIR bearing no. 517/96 against deceased and three of present respondent, it appears that relations between the petitioner and deceased's family were not good, apparently this is the reason for which they are opposing the claim of the petitioner and are denying even her status of widow of the deceased.
g) The respondent's witnesses are not reliable as Petition no. SC/32794/16 RW2 admitted in his cross examination that petitioner was the wife of the deceased, however he was saying opposite in his examination in chief. RW6 has just deposed on the basis of hearsay as he did not attend the marriage of petitioner with said Ramesh, further he had never seen the petitioner. Similarly, RW5 said in his examination in chief that deceased helped the petitioner and kept her as Aaya, however, in his cross examination, he has stated that deceased never helped the petitioner and she never came in contact with the deceased.
h) The alleged husband of the petitioner namely Ramesh was never called as a witness, all the respondent's witnesses made bald assertion about marriage between petitioner and Ramesh, no date, month or year of the said marriage has been apprised. None of the witness produced by the respondents appears to be reliable, their testimonies appears to be motivated.
i) Admittedly, no decree of divorce has been filed on record to show if any divorce had ever taken place between petitioner and the deceased.
In view of the above stated discussion, this court believes Petition no. SC/32794/16 that Pushpa Devi was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sh. Sat Pal. The existence of this fact is so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of this particular case act upon the supposition that it exists. Thus, the contention that Pushpa Devi was legally wedded wife of the deceased Sh. Sat Pal is proved. CLAIM OF RESPONDENTS 23 The respondents in this case are mother, father and siblings of the deceased. It is to be noted that ony mother and widow are the classI legal heir of the deceased. The classI legal heir will exclude the classII legal heir from inheriting anything from the estate of the deceased. Thus, it is held that it is only the petitioner and respondent namely Phoolwati (being mother of the deceased) are entitled to the estate of the deceased. Since, Smt. Phoolwati has died during the pendency of the present petition and her legal heirs namely Smt. Santosh, Smt. Leelawati, Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, Sh. Ashok Kumar @ Billu and Sh. Sunil Kumar have been impleaded, hence, the share of Smt, Phoolwati shall be distributed amongst her legal heirs. \ Petition no. SC/32794/16 24 As per pension rules, the family of a deceased employee does not include his mother, hence, its only the wife of the deceased, who will be entitled to the family pension or arrears of family pension. Reliance being placed on pension rules and a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case titled as Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani 2016 X AD (SC) 149.
25 This court holds that there is prima facie no impediment for grant of succession certificate in favour the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi to the extent of half share in respect of service dues of the deceased Sh. Satpal and she is exclusively entitled for family pension being the wife of the deceased Sat Pal. Succession certificate is also issued in favour of LRs of Phoolwati (mother of the deceased) namely Smt, Santosh, Smt. Leelawati, Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, Sh. Ashok Kumar @ Billu and Sh. Sunil Kumar to the remaining half share of Phoolwati which shall be equally devolved upon them only in the service dues of the deceased.
26 As per record of the office of Executive Engineer Petition no. SC/32794/16 (Electric), CPWD electric Division No. XII, LNJP Hospital, New Delhi, the outstanding dues towards arrears of family pension of the deceased are Rs.10,75,824/ w.e.f. 15.06.1997 to 31.01.2018 which shall be exclusively disbursed to the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi. Apart from this amount, the remaining amount i.e. Rs.1,55,386/ will be divided into two shares, half share will go to the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi and half share will go to LRs of Phoolwati. The total court fees in the present case comes to Rs. 30,780/. The succession Certificate be drawn on deposit of proportionate court fee of Rs.30,780/ and on furnishing an Indemnity Bond with one surety Digitally signed by GAJENDER GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR within 15 days. File be consigned to Record Room.
SINGH NAGAR Date:
2018.06.07 23:03:45 +0530 Announced in the open court (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR ) on 06.06.2018 Administrative Civil Judgecum Additional Rent Controller (Central) Delhi.
THIS JUDGMENT CONTAINS 20 PAGES
Petition no. SC/32794/16
SC/32794/16
06.06.2018
Present : None.
Put up for orders at 4:00 p.m.
(Gajender Singh Nagar)
ACJ/ARC (Central)
Delhi/06.06.2018
At 4:00 p.m.
Present : None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, it is held that there is primafacie no impediment for grant of Succession Certificate in favour the entitled persons. As per record of the office of Executive Engineer (Electric), CPWD electric Division No. XII, LNJP Hospital, New Delhi, the outstanding dues towards arrears of family pension of the deceased are Rs.10,75,824/ w.e.f. 15.06.1997 to 31.01.2018 which shall be exclusively disbursed to the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi.
Apart from this amount, the remaining amount i.e. Rs.1,55,386/ will be divided into two shares, half share will go to the petitioner Smt. Pushpa Devi and half share will go to LRs of Phoolwati. The total Petition no. SC/32794/16 court fees in the present case comes to Rs. 30,780/. The succession Certificate be drawn on deposit of proportionate court fee of Rs.30,780/ and on furnishing an Indemnity Bond with one surety within 15 days.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gajender Singh Nagar) ACJ/ARC (Central) Delhi/06.06.2018 Petition no. SC/32794/16 Petition no. SC/32794/16