Delhi District Court
Anita And Ors vs The State And Anr on 9 July, 2025
In the Court of Shri Arvind Bansal, District Judge-05 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
*****
In the matter of:
(I) Anita
w/o Late Shri Laxman Singh @ Laxman Singh Verma
(ii) Pratik Verma
s/o Late Shri Laxman Singh @ Laxman Singh Verma
(iii) Anjali
d/o Late Shri Laxman Singh @ Laxman Singh Verma
all r/o B-108A, Laxmi Park, Nangloi, Delhi-110041.
.......... Appellants
Versus
(I) The State
(ii) The Principal
Govt. Co-ed Senior Secondary School
Karampura, New Delhi.
RCA No. : 39/2021
Date of institution of appeal : 14.07.2021
Date when order reserved : 09.07.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 09.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, the Court shall decide one appeal filed by appellants/petitioners, challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2021 passed by Ld. Trial Court in Succession Case No.123/2020 titled 'Anita & Ors. vs. The State & Anr.' whereby an application/petition for issuance of Succession Certificate filed by the RCA No.39/2021 Anita & Ors. vs. The State & Anr.
Page 1 of 7appellants/petitioners was dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the filing of application/petition seeking succession certificate are as follows:- that being the legal heirs of deceased Late Shri Laxman Singh @ Laxman Singh Verma, appellants/petitioners filed an application/petition seeking issuance of succession certificate before Ld. Trial Court. Upon filing of the said application/petition, Ld. Trial Court issued a notice to the respondents and general public through publication in a newspaper vide its order dated 24.12.2020. The respondent no.2 appeared on 27.03.2021 before Ld. Trial Court upon service of notice and filed certain documents. Ld. Trial Court dismissed the said application/petition vide its order dated 27.03.2021 on the basis of documents filed by respondent no.2 and hence, the appellants have filed an appeal before this Court.
3. Upon receipt of the appeal, notice of the appeal was served upon the respondents who accordingly appeared before this Court. After filing of written submissions/reply by respondents, the matter was finally heard.
4. The present appeal has been filed on the following grounds:
(a) that Ld. Trial Court did not ask respondent no.2 to supply the copies of documents to the appellants;
(b) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that neither respondent no.2 filed any reply to the petition nor prayed for dismissal of the petition;
(c) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that on RCA No.39/2021 Anita & Ors. vs. The State & Anr.Page 2 of 7
11.02.2020, the deceased even after taking divorce from appellant no.1 got re-married with appellant no.1 and as such, there would be not effect of decree of divorce. That the appellant no.1 is the widow of the deceased Laxman Singh @ Laxman Singh Verma and therefore, entitled to issuance of a succession certificate;
(d) Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant no.2 & 3 are the real son and daughter of the deceased who were not disowned by virtue of any order of concerned Court of Law and as such, mere publication in any newspaper shall not disentitle them to apply for succession certificate.
Ld. Counsel for appellants reiterated the aforesaid grounds during arguments.
5. The present appeal has been challenged on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2 emphasising upon a letter dated 30.04.2019 of deceased Laxman Singh @ Laxman Singh Verma wherein he informed respondent no.2/school regarding dissolution of his marriage by decree of divorce dated 26.02.2009 by the Court of Ld. ADJ-01/HMA, Rohini Courts, Delhi and the public notice dated 11.04.2019 published in a Hindi newspaper namely "Jansatta" thereby disowning his son Pratik Verma and daughter Anjali Verma. It is argued that the alleged fact of deceased getting re-married to appellant no.1 on 11.02.2020 was never brought to the notice of respondent no.2. It is further argued that once appellant no.2 & 3 stood disowned by the deceased vide public notice, they were not entitled to issuance of a succession certificate in their favour qua movable property of the deceased. Ld. Counsel also stated RCA No.39/2021 Anita & Ors. vs. The State & Anr.
Page 3 of 7that Ld. Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition as not maintainable and therefore, no ground to allow the present appeal is made out.
6. Submissions heard. Record perused.
7. This Court has carefully perused the record, considered the rival submissions of the parties and has also perused the impugned order dated 27.03.2021. This Court shall deal with the issue involved in the present appeal in two parts, firstly, as regards the case of disownment of appellant no.2 & 3, and secondly, regarding the right of appellant no.1 as the wife of deceased.
7.1 Divorce, and Re-marriage: It is the argument of Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 & 2 that since marriage of appellant no.1 and deceased Laxman Singh @ Laxman Singh Verma stood dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 26.02.2009 of Court of competent jurisdiction, the alleged re-marriage, if any, between the parties does not entitle appellant no.1 to claim succession of movable property of deceased. It is argued that appellant no.1 was required to approach the competent Court for getting decree of divorce set aside to get herself declared as the legally wedded wife and/or legal heir of deceased Laxman Singh @ Laxman Singh Verma.
Per contra , it is the argument of Ld. Counsel for appellants that mere solemnization of re-marriage of deceased and appellant no.1 is sufficient to grant the status of "wife" to appellant no.1 and thus, making her entitled to succession of the estate of the deceased to the extent of her share.
RCA No.39/2021Anita & Ors. vs. The State & Anr.
Page 4 of 78. In respect of aforesaid submissions, this Court has perused the marriage certificate dated 11.02.2020 issued by 'Pandav Kalin Neeli Chhatri Mandir' Prachin Neeli Chhatri, Sanatan Dharam Vivah Padti Trust, Branch Officer at Sunderpuri, Ghaziabad, UP as well as certificate of registration of marriage issued by Marriage Registration Officer-05, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. While the marriage between deceased and appellant no.1 may have been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 26.02.2009, however, in the opinion of this Court, the aspect of re-marriage between both the parties and issuance of marriage certificate dated 11.02.2020 cannot, in any manner, be overlooked. It is noted that Sec.8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 grants status of class-I legal heir to the legally wedded wife of a male Hindu dying intestate.
In the present case, marriage/re-marriage of appellant no.1 with deceased on 11.02.2020, and the issuance of marriage certificate (subject to verification), in the opinion of this Court, is prima facie sufficient to grant status of wife to appellant no.1 as required by Hindu Succession Act. Further, neither the re-marriage nor the authenticity of the certificate has been challenged by any authority or individual as per the limited material available on record. As such, in the opinion of this Court, the observation of Ld. Trial Court regarding the status of marriage vide impugned order dated 27.03.2021 is not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside.
9. Disownment: In the context of the present appeal, the question to be decided by this Court is "whether the children can be disowned by their parents from their movable and immovable properties by issuing a public notice ?"
RCA No.39/2021Anita & Ors. vs. The State & Anr.Page 5 of 7
Broadly speaking, in the Indian legal system, the concept of "disowning" is not recognized per se. As far as moral obligations are concerned, the parents may not feel the necessity to be obliged to perform their moral obligations towards their children on the societal standards. In this regard, many parents resort to a convenient method of issuing or publishing a notice disowning their son or daughter from their family or property, as the case may be. The effect of such a publication by the parents disowning their children from movable or immovable properties may serve only as an indication that they are severing their societal ties with them. However, such publication in a newspaper does not have a dispositive legal effect renouncing the relationship or the legal status connected thereto. The publication is a mere gesture to make the public aware of the possible strained relationship between the persons connected to the publication.
10. Legally speaking, a male Hindu, if the property in question is his self acquired property, can bequeath the same to anyone as per his own wishes by means of a WILL or Gift Deed or otherwise by executing a legal document. However, if the parents die intestate, the children, no matter how poor their relationship was with their parents, shall have a right to succeed the self acquired property of the parents. They cannot be excluded from succeeding the property, regardless of the wishes of parents, in the absence of any testamentary documents.
11. In respect of the aforesaid issue, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled 'Preeti Satija vs. Raj Kumari', 207 (2014) DLT 78 (DB) that, "In fact, the strategy of 'disowning' sons, through public notices or advertisement, is not to be taken lightly.
RCA No.39/2021Anita & Ors. vs. The State & Anr.
Page 6 of 7For example, even if a son is disowned by either parent, the death of that parent would, if intestate, still lead to devolution of property upon that son. Indeed, a mere proclamation does not have a dispositive legal effect, breaking all legally relevant familial ties."
12. In the light of discussion in the preceding paragraphs and the aforesaid judgment, it is observed that mere publication dated 11.04.2019 by the deceased against his son and daughter, disowning them from his movable and immovable property, would not take away the right of appellant no.2 & 3 to succeed to the movable property of their deceased father. In other words, the publication would not take away their status of being 'son' and 'daughter' of the deceased in terms of Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As such, the reasoning of Ld. Trial Court in this regard cannot be accepted.
13. Having considered the facts, circumstances and law, the impugned order dated 27.03.2021 of Ld. Trial Court cannot be sustained and therefore, stands set aside and appeal is allowed.
Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court with direction to restore the file of the present case to its original number and proceed with the matter as per law in the light of aforesaid observations.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 09.07.2025.
(ARVIND BANSAL) District Judge-05 (West District) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi RCA No.39/2021 Anita & Ors. vs. The State & Anr.
Page 7 of 7