Delhi District Court
Surfuddin Ali Ahmed vs State And Ors on 6 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI SINGH, ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SOUTH
DISTRICT COURTS COMPLEX, SAKET, DELHI
SC No. 77/2017
CNR No. DLST03-001811-2017
1. Surfuddin Ali Ahmed
S/o Late Bashir Ahmed
R/o B-II-127, Madangir,
Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi-62
........Petitioner
Versus
1. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
New Delhi.
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Through Authorized Representative
A-5 & 6, Sector-1, Noida
UP 201301
3. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Through Authorized Representative
(Policy No.12663)
Group Schemes Department, Mumbai,
Division-I, New India Building,
S.V. Road, Mumbai-400054
4. Salma Khatoon
W/o Sh. Khalik Hussain
D/o Sh. Bashir Ahmed
R/o Mohalla-Kayamnagar
Near Post Office, Kayamnagar,
Bhojpur, Bihar-802314
5. Amna Khatoon
W/o Md. Menuddin
D/o Sh. Bashir Ahmed
R/o E-510, J.J. Camp Tigri,
New Delhi-110062
6. Naseema Bano
Succ. Court 77 of 2017 SURFUDDIN ALI AHMED Vs. STATE AND ORS. Pages 1 of 7
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.09.06
16:17:46
+0530
W/o Sh. Faiz Ahmed
D/o Sh. Bashir Ahmed
R/o C-477-B, Nagar Nigam School,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi-110062
7. Husna Bano
W/o Sh. Mahfooz Alam
D/o Sh. Bashir Ahmed
R/o Chandi, Narhi Chandi,
Bhojpur, Bihar-802161
.........Respondents
1. Date of Institution of Petition : 03.10.2017
2. Date of Judgment : 06.09.2025
3. Decision : Petition Allowed.
Succ. Court 77 of 2017 SURFUDDIN ALI AHMED Vs. STATE AND ORS. Pages 2 of 7
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.09.06
16:17:58
+0530
PETITION FOR GRANT OF SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION
372 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose off the petition filed by petitioner for grant of succession certificate qua maturity amount of insurance policy no.12663 of deceased Late Sh. Bashir Ahmed and, reimbursement of medical bill of Rs. 82,970/- of the deceased from, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. under its post retirement benefit scheme.
2. In the petition, it is inter-alia pleaded that the petitioner is the legal heir of Late Sh. Bashir Ahmed (hereinafter called the deceased), who expired on 13.02.2017. It is further submitted that the mother of the petitioner expired on 15.06.2010 and the deceased left behind 5 legal heirs. As far the jurisdiction is concerned, it is submitted that the ordinary place of residence of the deceased was B-II 127, Madangir, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi-110062, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Notice of this petition was given to the general public by way of publication in the newspaper 'Veer Arjun' on 03.02.2022. In response to the notice, no person from the general public came forward to file any objection for issuance of succession certificate in favor of the petitioner.
4. During the summary proceedings conducted as per Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, 7 persons were examined. Petitioner was examined as PW-1 and respondent no.4, 5, 6 and 7 were examined as PW4, RW5, PW6 and PW7, respectively. Respondent no.1 and 2 were examined as RW1 and RW2, respectively.
Succ. Court 77 of 2017 SURFUDDIN ALI AHMED Vs. STATE AND ORS. Pages 3 of 7 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.06 16:18:05 +0530
5. Petitioner filed his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/1, wherein he reiterated the contents of the petition and relied upon following documents:-
a) Ex.PW1/A (OSR) i.e. Copy of death certificate of deceased Late Sh. Bashir Ahmad.
b) Ex.PW1/B (OSR) i.e. Copy of notice of retirement of deceased Late Sh. Bashir Ahmad dated 11.11.1992.
c) Mark A i.e. Copy of final bill dated 13.02.2017, issued by H.A.H. Centenary Hospital, Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi.
d) Ex. PW1/D (OSR) i.e. Copy of aadhar card of petitioner.
e) Ex. PW1/E (OSR) i.e. Copy of aadhar card of deceased.
f) Ex. PW1/F i.e. Petition.
g) Ex. PW1/G (OSR) i.e. Copy of appointment letter of deceased issued by respondent no.2 (earlier known as Burma Shell Oil Storage & Disturbing Company of India Ltd.) dated 16.10.1956.
h) Ex. PW1/H i.e. Copy of order of Dy. Commissioner, South Delhi, dated 23.09.2010 regarding death of wife of deceased Late Sh. Bashir Ahmad.
6. PW-4, RW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are the respondents, who are also stated to be the heirs of the deceased. However, they all gave their no objection for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the petitioner.
7. RW-1 is the Patwari from the office of SDM Hauz Khas, New Delhi who filed the report i.e Ex.RW1/A, prepared by Sh. Daman Deep Singh, Tehsildar, Hauz Khas. As per Ex RW-1/A, the deceased expired on 13.02.2017 and left behind 5 legal heirs i.e. the petitioner and respondent no.4 to 7. The report of RW-1 is supported with supporting death certificates and statement of two witnesses.
8. RW-2 is the witness who appeared on behalf of respondent no.2, Life Insurance Corporation of India. His authority letter along with a reply was exhibited as Succ. Court 77 of 2017 SURFUDDIN ALI AHMED Vs. STATE AND ORS. Pages 4 of 7 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.06 16:18:11 +0530 Ex. RW2/A (colly) and copy of his I-card was exhibited as Ex. RW2/B. As per the reply filed by RW2, the management of respondent no.2 was willing to release the medical reimbursement qua the deceased for the medical bills submitted by the petitioner with respondent no.2. However, as per respondent no.2, the amount payable on account of the medical expense incurred for the deceased was Rs. 71,609.96/-.
9. The petitioner chose not to examine respondent no.3 and statement of the counsel was recorded on 04.12.2024 to this effect. Further, during final arguments, the counsel for petitioner prayed that succession certificate should be issued in favour of the petitioner. He clarified that the petitioner is not pressing for the amount of Rs. 82,970/-, as sought in the petition and as per the submission of respondent no.2, Rs. 71,609.96/- be released to the petitioner.
10. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and I have also perused the record and gone through the relevant provisions of law. As per the facts of this case, prima facie, it can be said that the deceased died intestate leaving behind 5 legal heirs. Further, it can be said that the deceased was working with respondent no.2, as proved through Ex. PW1/B (OSR) and he seems to have been admitted in ICU of H.A.H. Centenary Hospital before his death. As per the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 82,969/- was spent on the medical expense of the deceased but as per respondent no.2, the entitlement is only to the extent of Rs. 71,609.96/-. Further, it is also admitted by respondent no.2 that deceased was the beneficiary for post retirement benefits and therefore, entitled to the amount of Rs. 71,609.96/-. As far the law for grant of succession certificate and the mode of enquiry is concerned, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi, AIR 2000 SC 2301:
" 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, Succ. Court 77 of 2017 SURFUDDIN ALI AHMED Vs. STATE AND ORS. Pages 5 of 7 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.06 16:18:16 +0530 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 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 time- barred, 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. The ratio of above judgment indicates that the main object of a succession certificate is to facilitate collection of debts on succession and afford protection to the parties being debts to the 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. The grant of a certificate does not establish title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased. A succession certificate is intended 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 to the person, he is lawfully discharged. Certificates are issued to heirs, non- heirs or nominees.
12. In light of the settled law and in light of oral and documentary evidence on record, it can be said that the deceased was the resident of B-II, 127, Madangir, New Delhi-110062, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court and he expired on 13.02.2017, as pleaded in the petition and verified by RW-1. Further, as per the evidence on record, prima facie it can be said that the deceased left behind 5 legal heirs and, Rs. 82,969/- were incurred in the treatment of the deceased. RW-2 has admitted that the deceased was entitled to post retirement benefits and the department is willing to reimburse a sum of Rs.
Succ. Court 77 of 2017 SURFUDDIN ALI AHMED Vs. STATE AND ORS. Pages 6 of 7 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.09.06 16:18:24 +0530 71,609.96/-. Further, since the remaining heirs have given their no objection for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner by way of the present petition has gone unrebutted and un- controverted. Therefore, in light of the said discussion, there is no impediment under Section 370 of the Act to grant Succession Certificate in favor of the petitioner with respect to Rs. 71,609.96/- spent on the treatment of deceased, to be reimbursed by respondent no.2.
13. Accordingly, this Court holds that petitioner i.e Sh. Surfuddin Ali Ahmed S/o Late Sh. Bashir Ahmed is entitled to Succession Certificate qua reimbursement claim amount i.e. balance of Rs. 71,609.96/- (Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred Nine Rupees Ninety Six Paisas only) spent on the treatment of the deceased, who is proved to be entitled as per the post retirement benefit of respondent no.2. Succession certificate be issued in favour of petitioner upon filing of requisite court fees and indemnity bond.
14. It is however made clear that this succession certificate shall be considered only as an entitlement of petitioner to receive the amount as stated above, (with up- to-date interest, if any). The department may seek compliance of formalities, if any, by petitioner for securing release of the amount, as per rules.
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.09.06
Announced in the open Court 16:18:31
+0530
on 06.09.2025
(SHILPI SINGH)
ACJ-CCJ-ARC/South,
Saket Court/Delhi
Succ. Court 77 of 2017 SURFUDDIN ALI AHMED Vs. STATE AND ORS. Pages 7 of 7