Delhi District Court
Narain Ram vs The State (General Public) on 31 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
P.C. No. 06/2018
CNR No. DLSW010020752018
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Narain Ram
Father of deceased Chander Parkash
S/o Late Moti Ram
R/o 55N, CBI Colony
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi -57
Previous address:
Narain Ram
Father of deceased Chander Parkash
S/o Late Moti Ram
R/o 45N, CBI Colony
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi -57 ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State (General Public)
2. Pooja
W/o Late Chander Parkash
R/o 55N, CBI Colony
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-57
Previous address:
R/o 45N, CBI Colony
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi -57
P.C. No. 06/2018
Page 1 of 13
3. Tanmay Kumar
S/o Late Chander Parkash
R/o 45N, CBI Colony
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-57
(through his mother i.e.
Natural Guardian Smt. Pooja)
4. Mohini Devi
Mother of Deceased Chander Parkash
W/o Sh Narain Ram
R/o 45N, CBI Colony, Vasant Vihar
New Delhi-57
5. Meenakshi Arya
W/o Ramesh Kumar
Sister of the deceased
R/o H.No. 1582, Sector-5
Vasudhara, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
6. Lakshmi Devi
Sister of the deceased
W/o Sh Khayali Ram
R/o H.No. 4(A)/4098
Vasudhara Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
7. Deepika
W/o Lalit Sharma
Sister of the deceased
R/o H.No. 91C,
C-Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi
8. Bank of Maharashtra
28/14, First Floor
East Patel Nagar
New Delhi ... Respondents
P.C. No. 06/2018
Page 2 of 13
Date of institution of the petition : 24.01.2018
Date of arguments : 09.01.2020
Date of pronouncement : 31.01.2020
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter ''the Act'') filed by the petitioner, namely, Narain Ram (hereinafter "petitioner") seeking the grant of letters of administration in respect of the property admeasuring 50sq.yds. bearing No. RZ-G-74A, third floor backside, out of Khasra No. 82/21, situated in the area of Palam Village, colony known as Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi - 110045 (hereinafter "subject property"). The subject property is situated in a regularized colony, which was regularized by Municipal Corporation of Delhi vide resolution No. 1023 dated 11.01.1984 and the subject property also has a sanctioned electricity connection. The subject property was purchased by Chander Parkash (hereinafter referred as "deceased") by virtue of a sale deed bearing registration No. 7748, Book No.1, Vol. No. 8358 on page Nos. 86 to 92 dated 17.07.2015.
2. One Chander Prakash, who died intestate on 02.12.2017 at New Delhi. Chander Prakash was the son of the petitioner, namely, Narain Ram (hereinafter "petitioner") and respondent No. 4, namely, Mohini Devi (hereinafter "respondent No. 4"). The respondent No. 2, Pooja (hereinafter "respondent No. 2") is the widow of Chander Prakash and P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 3 of 13 respondent No. 3, namely, Master Tanmay Kumar is the son of Chander Prakash and Pooja (respondent No. 2 herein). The respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are the full blood sisters of Chander Prakash, namely, Meenakshi Arya, Lakshmi Devi and Deepika, respectively. The respondent No. 1 is the State and respondent No. 8, Bank of Maharashtra are the necessary parties, as Chander Prakash during his lifetime got the subject property financed from Bank of Maharashtra (hereinafter "respondent No. 8"), for an amount of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only). It is further averred that petitioner wants to sell the subject property and settle the liability towards the loan sought against the subject property from the respondent No. 8 - Bank of Maharashtra. Hence, the present petition seeking the grant of the letters of administration in favour of the petitioner with regard to the subject property.
3. At the time of his death, Chander Prakash had permanent place of abode at 55N CBI, Colony Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, whereas the subject property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. The petitioner has averred in the petition that he intends to sell the subject property being one of the legal heirs of Chander Prakash and letters of administration be granted in his favour.
5. The citations vide order dated 12.07.2018 were directed to be published in newspapers "The Statesman" and "Veer Arjun". The respective publication reports of the aforesaid newspapers both dated 08.09.2018 are on record.
P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 4 of 136. The respondent Nos.2,4,5, 6 and 7 appeared before Court, filed their affidavits and also recorded their no-objection statements in favour of the petitioner.
7. On 09.01.2020, the petitioner stepped into the witness box and deposed in tandem to the petition. Apart from filing of the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A towards his evidence, the petitioner (PW1) relied upon the following documents:
S.No. Documents Marked as Particulars of Documents
1. Ex.PW1/1(OSR) Copy of death certificate of Chander Prakash
2. Ex.PW1/2(OSR) Copy of passport of Late Chander Prakash
2. Ex. PW1/3(OSR) Copy of sale deed of the subject property bearing registration No. 7748, Book No.1, Vol. No. 8358 on page Nos. 86 to 92 dated 17.07.2015
3. Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) Copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner
8. Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi, Branch Manager of respondent No.8 appeared in the Court on 03.04.2019 and deposed that Bank of Maharashtra has no-objection if the letter of administration is allowed in favour of the petitioner. He further stated that petitioner has paid entire dues to the bank and he has no-objection, if the original documents are also returned to the petitioner.
9. On careful perusal and examination of the case record it is observed that the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner, as the subject property is situated within the territorial P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 5 of 13 jurisdiction of this Court.1
10. The notice was also issued to the State and thereafter the concerned Collector/SDM. The SDM, Dwarka filed the valuation report stating the value of the subject property as ₹31,02,786/- (Rupees Thirty one lakhs two thousand seven hundred eighty six only).
11. The petitioner on being aggrieved by the valuation report lodged his protest on 05.09.2019. An application under Section 19H of the Court Fees Act, 1870 was moved by the petitioner. Notice of the said application was issued to the concerned SDM/Collector calling for an inquiry, as per the provision of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
12. On 05.12.2019, Mr. Harish Bhatt, DEO, SDM Dwarka filed the valuation report. Once again, the learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the valuation report on the ground that the valuation report is a verbatim copy of the previous report. A fresh notice was issued to the concerned SDM with the direction to file a correct valuation report of the subject property. Pursuant to the said notice, fresh valuation report was filed, as per which the subject property was valued at ₹30,05,797/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs five thousand and seven hundred ninety seven only). On 24.12.2019, the petitioner was yet to lead evidence and the learned counsel for the petitioner sought leave to simultaneously lead evidence in support of his objection to the valuation report.
13. Mr. Ankur Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner 1 See Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 6 of 13 submitted that Chander Prakash died interstate left behind not only a widow, a minor son but also aging parents and three sisters. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that with regard to the subject property Chander Prakash had availed finance facility of ₹10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) from respondent No.8. Learned counsel further submitted that with the demise of Chander Prakash it has become onerous upon his Class I legal heirs to service the return of loan and thus it would be in the best interest if the petitioner is granted letters of administration of the subject property alongwith permission to enter into negotiations and transfer the same. The learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that during the pendency of the present legal proceedings, the petitioner has cleared all outstanding dues with respondent No.8 and the subject property is without any encumbrance, charge etc.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the Class I legal heirs of Chander Prakash are alive, of whom the son is a minor and two of them are females. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is the Class II legal heir and there is no legal impediment in appointing the petitioner as an administrator to the estate of Chander Prakash and permission be granted to transfer, alienate the subject property.
15. I, have perused the complete case record and deliberated over the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
16. This Court observe that Chander Prakash died intestate and post P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 7 of 13 his demise there are three Class I legal heirs - son(respondent No.3 herein), widow (respondent No.2 herein) and mother (respondent No.4 herein); four Class II legal heirs - father (petitioner herein) and three sisters (respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7).
17. The respondent Nos.2, 3, 5,6 and 7 have recorded their no- objection statements in favour of petitioner. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, on demise of a Hindu male, who died intestate, all his properties shall devolve firstly upon the Class I legal heirs and if there is no Class I legal heir than upon the legal heirs in Class II of the Schedule. In case there neither Class I legal heir nor Class II legal heir than the properties shall devolve upon the agnates and in case there is not agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides the order of succession amongst the heirs in the Schedule. As per Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the Class I heirs shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs. Whereas, those in the first entry in Class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry and those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry and so on in succession.
18. In the case at hand, the petitioner is an entry I, Class II legal heir, whereas the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are entry II, Class II legal heirs. 2 The petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the Class I legal heirs, which means that as per the rules of succession they shall take 2 See Section 8 and the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 8 of 13 simultaneously to the exclusion of other heirs i.e. Class II heirs.
19. Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act, 1945 states that if the deceased, who was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person, administration of his estate may be granted to any person, according to the rules for the distribution of the estate applicable in the case of such deceased.
20. On harmonious reading of Section 8, 9 and the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 218 of the Indian Succession Act, 1945, this Court is of the view that the Class I legal heir of Chander Prakash are females and a minor son. The females, Class I legal heirs have given their no-objection in favour of the petitioner, who is the Class II of the legal heir. It is the interest of the minor which has to be protected by this Court, keeping in mind that in case the permission sought by the petitioner is declined, it would be a travesty of justice and burdening the estate of Chander Prakash and his Class I legal heirs to square off the loan availed by him during his lifetime from respondent No.8. This Court is of the view that by protecting the interest, share of the minor in the subject property by imposing certain conditions, the petition preferred by the petitioner can be allowed.
21. That said, with regard to the objections lodged by the petitioner to the valuation report filed by the concerned SDM, Dwarka, this Court observes that the sale deed Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) was signed and executed on 14.07.2015 and duly registered on 17.07.2015. As per the P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 9 of 13 sale deed the total sale consideration of the subject property was ₹16,85,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs and eighty five thousand only). As per the death certificate Ex. PW1/1 (OSR), Chander Prakash died on 02.12.2017. The variance between the valuation report and the sale deed of the subject property is approximately ₹13,20,797/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs twenty thousand and seven hundred ninety seven only). This Court takes judicial notice that the sale deed Ex.PW1/3(OSR) must have been executed either at the prevalent circle rate or higher than the circle rate. However, the appreciation of the valuation of the subject property by ₹13,20,797/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs twenty thousand and seven hundred ninety seven only) within a span of two years and five months is on a higher side. The objections flagged by the petitioner to the valuation report filed by the concerned SDM are upheld. I, deem appropriate to consider the valuation of the subject property at ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) and not ₹30,05,797/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs five thousand and seven hundred ninety seven only).
22. Section 273 of the Act provides that once letters of administration have been given to a party, it shall have effect over all the properties of the deceased, both movable and immovable. It is however settled position in law that the person to whom the letters of administration is granted, does not thereby is entitled to the property or estate of the deceased; the estate will succeed according to law of succession applicable to the deceased.
P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 10 of 1323. The purpose of grant of letters of administration is only to enable the administrator so appointed by the Court to collect/assimilate the properties of the deceased and to deal with the various authorities with whom the properties of the deceased may be vested or recorded and thereafter the same be transferred in the name(s) of the successors in accordance with law of succession applicable to the deceased. The administrator not only in the course of the proceedings but also is required from time to time to file the accounts in the court with respect to the administration of the estate of the deceased.
24. Section 220 of the Act provides that the letters of administration entitle the administrator to all rights belonging to the intestate, as effectually, as if the administration had been granted at the moment after his/her death. Section 307(2)(ii) of the Act states that an administrator may not without the previous permission of the Court by which the letters of administration were granted transfer by sale, gift, exchange, or mortgage, charge or lease any such property for a term exceeding five years.
25. No objections were received to the petition, from any quarter despite publication of citations in two newspapers. Accordingly, this court observes that there is no impediment to grant letter of administration in the favour of the petitioner.
26. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off with directions for issuance of letters of administration under the seal of this Court in the P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 11 of 13 form set forth in Schedule VII of the Act, with regard to the subject property to negotiate and enter into a transaction to transfer, alienate the subject property, provided the petitioner:
(a) furnishes ad-valorem court fees on the valuation of ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) of the subject property;
(b) an administration bond with one surety of like amount;
(c) deposit 1/3rd share of ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) or of the total sale consideration of the subject property, whichever is higher, in favour of Master Tanmay Kumar by way of a fixed deposit receipt in a nationalized bank or in a bank yielding highest rate of return with automatic renewal until the minor - Tanmay Kumar attains majority;
(d) file a certified copy of the sale deed, conveyance deed in Court within 3(three) weeks from the date of entering into a sale deed or a conveyance deed; and
(e) shall within 6(six) months exhibit in Court an inventory, statement of accounts, expenses, etc., with regard to the sale proceeds received from the sale, transfer of the subject property.
27. This Court deems it appropriate to further observe that nothing stated herein-above shall be construed, as an expression of opinion in respect of title of the deceased or of the petitioner over the subject property in question.
28. Nothing stated herein shall however be treated as an expression P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 12 of 13 of opinion, as an expression of opinion as to ownership of the deceased in respect of subject property.
29. File be consigned to record room only after completion of formalities and due compliance. Digitally signed by HARGURVARINDER SINGH HARGURVARINDER JAGGI SINGH JAGGI Date: 2020.01.31 15:57:31 +0530 Pronounced in the open (Hargurvarinder S. Jaggi) Court on January 31, 2020 Addl. District Judge-02 South West Dwarka Courts Complex, Delhi P.C. No. 06/2018 Page 13 of 13