Delhi District Court
Ramya Hans vs State on 12 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided Over By: Sh. Bharat Aggarwal
Petition No. : Succ. Court 88/2024
CNR No. : DLCT03-005700-2024
Ramya Hans Vs. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Ors.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Ramya Hans (Being Minor)
Through Her Mother/Natural Guardian
Smt Meetu Hans
r/o B-1 C/3B, 2nd Floor,
Near Opposite Andhra School,
Janakpuri, West Delhi-110058
Aadhar No. 3929 9329 9395 2393
Mob. No. 8130183544
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State (NCT Of Delhi)
2. The Branch Manager
Panjab National Bank Ltd
Branch At: Old Rajendra Nagar,
New Delhi
3. The Branch Manager
ICICI Bank Ltd,
Branch At: Old Rajendra Nagar,
New Delhi
SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 1 of 21
Digitally signed
by BHARAT
AGGARWAL
BHARAT
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12
18:05:17
+0530
4. The Branch Manager
Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Branch At: Old Rajendra Nagar,
New Delhi
5. Smt. Sarla Hans
w/o Late Sh. Joginder Pal Singh
r/o V-261, Dlf Capital, Greens,
Moti Nagar, Delhi-110015
...RESPONDENTS
Date of institution : 05.08.2024
Date of judgment : 12.09.2025
JUDGMENT
THE PETITION:
1. The present petition for issuance of succession certificate has been filed by the petitioner under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in respect of debts and securities of the deceased Late Mr. Himanshu Hans s/o Mr. Joginder Pal Hans (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') who is stated to be the father of petitioner and son of respondent no.5. The petition has been instituted by the minor daughter of the deceased through her natural guardian/ mother Ms. Meetu Hans.
2. It is averred in the petition that the deceased died intestate on 21.02.2024 at Delhi. It is further stated that the deceased SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 2 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:05:21 +0530 was an ordinary resident of 21/52, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi-110060, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is further stated that the deceased is survived by two legal heirs i.e. petitioner, being his daughter and respondent no. 5, being his mother.
3. It is averred that the deceased has left behind certain debts and securities as mentioned in para no.6 of the present petition. In the petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of succession certificate in respect of the said debts and securities as mentioned in para no.6 of the present petition as the deceased is stated to have died intestate.
IMPLEADMENT OF MOTHER OF THE DECEASED AND PUBLICATION:
4. State has been impleaded as respondent no.1 in the present petition. After filing of this petition, notice was given to the general public by way of publication in the newspaper "The Statesman" dated 06.05.2025 but none appeared from general public to oppose or contest the present petition.
5. It is pertinent to state here that the petitioner did not implead Smt. Sarla Hans, mother of the deceased as a party respondent when the petition was filed. An application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was filed by Smt. Sarla Hans i.e. mother of the SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 3 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:05:25 +0530 deceased, which was allowed vide order dated 28.02.2025 and she was impleaded as respondent no. 5 in the present proceedings.
EVIDENCE:
6. During summary enquiry, three witnesses were examined.
7. RW-1 Ms. Avinash Kaur, Branch Operations Manager, Kotal Mahindra Bank, Shankar Road, Delhi, brought on record the certified statement of account in respect of two saving bank accounts bearing no. 6113067732 lying in the name of the deceased having amount of Rs. 1,83,436.02p and another savings bank account bearing no. 3246462311 lying in the name of the petitioner and the deceased having amount of Rs.21,021.31/- as Ex. RW-1/1 and Ex. RW-1/2 respectively.
8. RW-2, Mr. Sunil Kumar, ICICI Bank, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi, brought on record the certified statement of one saving bank account bearing no. 036401506903 lying in the name of deceased having an amount of Rs.24,978.89/- as Ex. RW-2/2.
9. RW-3, Mr. Mahesh, Record Keeper (EC-5135704), PNB, Old Rajinder Nagar, brought on record the certified statement of one PPF account bearing account no. 307500PPF00000000030 lying in the name of deceased having an amount of Rs.12,62,631/-
SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 4 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:05:29 +0530 as closing balance as on 23.03.2024 as Ex. RW-3/2 (Colly.).
OBJECTIONS FILED BY MOTHER OF THE DECEASED:
10. For context, the petitioner claims to be the biological daughter and Class-I legal heir of the deceased Sh. Himanshu Hans and seeks issuance of a succession certificate in respect of the debts and securities left behind by the deceased. It is inter alia stated by the objector/respondent no.5 that the petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court in the present petition.
11. It is stated that Smt. Meetu i.e., mother of the petitioner took a divorce from her son as she wanted to live with one Sh.
Aman Gupta and she got married with him on 01.06.2020. It is stated that after such marriage, the rights of the minor daughter Ramya Hans/petitioner devolved with Sh. Aman Gupta as she was adopted by Sh. Aman Gupta as per the consent of the deceased. That respondent no.5 is solely entitled to the debts and securities of the deceased and Smt. Meetu filed the present petition cleverly to create status of legal heir of Ms. Ramya Hans and the objector is interested in DNA test of the petitioner. It is stated that the petition is barred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as Smt. Meetu wants to grab the rights of the applicant/objector in the properties of her deceased son. Further, it is stated that the petition is not maintainable before this court as the deceased was residing at Moti Nagar, Delhi and the offices of respondent no.2 to 4 are situated beyond the territorial SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 5 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:05:33 +0530 jurisdiction of this court.
12. It is alleged that after the marriage of the deceased with Smt. Meetu, she started harassing, humiliating and torturing the objector as well as her family members. It is further stated that Smt. Meetu caused immense mental pain, agony and cruelties upon her husband and despite the birth of the petitioner, she kept on harassing her husband/deceased and her in-laws. It is further alleged that she remained unfaithful towards her husband/deceased. It is stated that ultimately, due to the serious disputes between the parties, they agreed to desolve their marriage by way of mutual consent and vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2018, their marriage was annuled and as per the terms and conditions, the custody of the petitioner was taken by her mother Smt. Meetu.
13. It is alleged that Smt. Meetu performed her second marriage with Sh. Aman Gupta on 01.06.2020 and her second husband adopted the petitioner. After the divorce, petitioner and her mother are left with no relations with the deceased or any of his family member including the objector.
14. It is stated that after the death of the deceased, the objector became sole legal heir of the deceased and she has inherited and acquired all his assets and properties. It is further alleged that Smt. Meetu has been regularly pressurizing the objector and the family members to give her all the properties of the deceased and she has been extending threats to them.
SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 6 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:05:37 +0530
15. It is stated that Smt. Meetu misused the process of law and has filed the succession petition through her daughter without impleading the objector despite the fact that the objector is the sole legal heir of the deceased. It is alleged that by way of the present petition, Smt. Meetu wants to get the petitioner declared as the only legal heir of the deceased at the back of the objector, on the basis of false and fabricated facts. In these circumstances, the objector has essentially submitted that the petitioner has no right or locus to seek succession certificate of the deceased as the objector is the sole legal heir of her deceased son.
16. A reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner whereby inter alia it is stated that the objections of the respondent no.5 are defamatory towards the minor petitioner and her mother Smt. Meetu. It is further denied that after the marriage of Smt. Meetu with Sh. Aman Gupta on 01.06.2020, rights of the petitioner stands transferred and devolved upon Sh. Aman Gupta. It is further submitted that the plea of adoption taken by the respondent no.5 is false and baseless and the intention of the objector/respondent no.5 is to grab the share of the petitioner from the estate of the deceased.
17. It is stated that out of the wedlock of deceased with Smt. Meetu, the petitioner was born on 01.03.2013 and due to temperamental differences between the deceased and Smt. Meetu, one memorandum of understanding dated 08.10.2017 was executed between the parties. It is stated that the deceased Smt. Meetu got SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 7 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:05:41 +0530 divorced on 23.10.2018 and custody of the petitioner/ minor child was granted to her mother Smt. Meetu. It is stated that after the death of the deceased, the petitioner and his mother are the only surviving class-1 legal heirs of the deceased. It is further alleged that the plea of DNA test of the petitioner taken by the objector is bald, baseless and defamatory.
18. It is stated that respondent no.5 had filed a evidence by way of affidavit on 08.11.2024, before Ld. MACT Court, Tis Hazari Courts whereby she did not take any plea of adoption of the petitioner and her DNA test. It is alleged that objector had further admitted therein that the petitioner was born out of the wedlock of the deceased and Smt. Meetu. It is further stated that the deceased was given visitation rights as per the terms of such MOU. It is further stated that deceased used to bear expenses of the petitioner and he has visited Australia twice with the petitioner i.e. his daughter. It is further alleged that the deceased himself opened his bank accounts whereby his daughter i.e. petitioner was the nominee.
19. Arguments were heard at length from both the sides and the record has been carefully perused. It was strongly argued on the behalf of the objector/respondent no.5 that the petitioner was adopted by Sh. Aman Gupta i.e., second husband of Smt. Meetu Hans who is the mother/guardian of the petitioner. It was further vehemently argued that since petitioner is not the daughter of the deceased, respondent no.5 shall solely be entitled to all the debts and securities of the deceased being his mother.
SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 8 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.09.12 18:05:45 +0530
20. Per contra, it was vehemetly argued by the petitioner through her mother/natural guardian Smt. Meetu Hans that the objections have been filed by the mother of the deceased with a malafide intention to exclude the daughter of the deceased from his estate. It was further pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.5 has never earlier disputed the fact that petitioner is the daughter of the deceased Sh. Himanshu Hans and she has raised unnecessary allegations in the objections.
21. Upon careful perusal of the objections, its reply and the documents filed on record by the parties it becomes clear that the contentions of the objector/respondent no.5 are completely bereft of any merit. The submissions advanced on behalf of the objector/respondent no.5 and the argument that she shall be solely entitied to succeed to the estate of the deceased also appears to be completely meritless and misconcieved.
22. It appears that the obejections have only been filed by the respondent no.5/mother of the deceased, either under some misconception of law or to unnecessarily prolong the adjudiction of the present petition. It is though quite apparent that the relations between the parties were extremely estranged while the mother of the petitioner was married to the deceased and the kind of unecessary allegations made by mother of the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 still reflects that there is huge animosity between them. The objector's plea regarding the petitioner's alleged adoption SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 9 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:05:48 +0530 by Sh. Aman Gupta lacks any supporting material on record. No legal document, deed of adoption, or compliance with statutory requirements under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 has been placed on record by the objector. Mere remarriage of the petitioner's mother or any claim for maintenance does not result in the legal severance of the petitioner's relationship with her biological father. Adoption, if alleged, must be proved strictly in accordance with law, particularly when such adoption is pleaded to negate legal rights of a minor child arising under succession law. In absence of any credible material, the plea of adoption, is found to be without merit and baseless.
23. Bare perusal of the MOU dated 08.10.2017 executed between the deceased Sh. Himanshu Hans and Smt. Meetu Hans i.e., mother of the petitioner shows that petitioner indeed was the daughter of the deceased. It was duly decided between them that the petitioner shall stay with her mother Smt. Meetu Hans. It also reflects that the deceased was entitled to meet his daughter on certain days and it was even agreed that the school in which she studies shall not be changed without the written consent of the deceased. These facts affirm the continued parental relationship between the deceased and the petitioner and no objection regarding genuineness of such MOU was raised on behalf of the objector.
24. Further, perusal of the evidence by way of affidavit filed by the objector/respondent no.5 before Ld. Presiding Officer, MACT, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi inter alia reflects SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 10 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:05:52 +0530 that she has specifically averred therein that out of the wedlock of her son Sh. Himanshu Hans with Smt. Meetu Hans, one child Ms. Ramya Hans i.e. petitioner herein was born. Hence, clear and unambiguous admission regarding the petitioner being the daughter of the deceased was made by the objector on an affidavit sworn on oath filed before a court of law. It is surprising and shocking to note that the objector/respondent no.5 has changed her stand completely in the present objections, perhaps on some ill advice and she has raised unwarranted questions on the legitimacy of the minor petitioner.
25. It is also very pertinent to note that bare perusal of judgment of divorce dated 23.10.2018 between the deceased Sh. Himanshu Hans and mother of the petitoner Smt. Meetu Hans clearly reflects that the marriage between them was consummated and a daughter namely Ramya i.e., petitioner herein was born on 01.03.2013. Hence, such judgment also goes a long way to show that the objections filed by the respondent no.5 are not just unncessary and vexatious but they contain false and frivolous allegations.
26. The demand for a DNA test of the petitioner is entirely unwarranted in the facts of this case. When the objector herself has admitted the petitioner's parentage in earlier proceedings before Ld. MACT Court, Central, Tis Hazari Court, and there exists documentary and judicial record confirming the same, no case is made out for subjecting the minor petitioner to such a test. Courts SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 11 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:05:56 +0530 are not to entertain requests for DNA testing in a routine manner, especially where it may lead to stigmatization of a minor and is intended merely to delay the proceedings or cause harassment.
27. The argument on behalf of objector/respondent no.5 that the petitoner has filed a partition suit against her in respect of the immovable properties of the deceased and thus, the petition be dismissed, is liable to be rejected. The petitioner may file any other case in respect of the immovable properties of the deceased and such fact per se would not make the present petition non- maintainable. Even otherwise, filing of other cases by the petitioner for her legal rights would not have any bearing on the present petition.
28. Another argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that Smt. Meetu Hans has got one FIR registered against her second husband Sh. Aman Gupta and that she has claimed maintainance for the petitioner from such second husband and thus, the present petition must be dismissed. However, in the opinion of this court, merely because mother of the petitioner has certain disputes with her second husband or she has claimed maintainance for the petitioner from the second husband, would not ipso facto disentitle the petitioner from claiming succession to the estate of her deceased father. Needless to say, such allegations and claim for maintanance will have to be decided on the basis of their own merits and the applicable law and mere filing of a claim for maintainance, if at all, does not prove that petitioner was duly adopted by such second SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 12 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:06:00 +0530 husband of Smt. Meetu.
29. It is also noticeable that the argument of the objector that this court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to decide the present petition, is also bereft of any merit. The death certificate of the deceased shows that he was a resident of Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and accordindly, in terms of Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, this court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition.
30. It is also relevant to note that under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, both the mother and the daughter of a deceased Hindu male are Class-I legal heirs. The objector is also a legal heir being his mother but she cannot exclude the petitioner from inheritance. Therefore, the claim that the objector alone is entitled to the entire estate of the deceased is legally untenable and not sustainable under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the objections filed by the respondent no.5 are found to be completely meritless and frivolous. Hence, the objections filed by respondent no.5 are hereby dismissed. The succession petition shall be proceeded with in accordance with law.
SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 13 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:06:04 +0530 LEGAL FRAMEWORK:
32. Before proceeding further, the law pertaining to grant of succession certificate may be discussed for better understanding of the concept. It is trite that merely by grant of succession certificate, the holder does not become the owner of the estate of the deceased. In this regard, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.K. Prahalada and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. [MANU/SC/7618/2008, (2008) 15 SCC 577] are relevant to be noted, which are as follows:
"A succession certificate is granted for a limited purpose. A Court granting a succession certificate does not decide the question of title. A nominee or holder of succession certificate has a duty to hand over the property to the person who has a legal title thereto. By obtaining a succession certificate alone, a person does not become the owner of the property."
33. It is also well settled that the holder of the certificate has a bounden duty to release the debt and securities of the deceased to the rightful claimant under the applicable law. Certain observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Atul Maithel vs. State Bank of India and Ors. [MANU/DE/3548/2017] are set out below:-
"14. As far as the only other contention is concerned, the Court granting the Succession Certificate only issues the certificate to declare to the public at large, of the grantee thereof being entitled, under orders of the Court, to collect the debts and securities of the deceased and to give SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 14 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.09.12 18:06:08 +0530 due discharge therefor. However, if any person holding such debts and securities refuses to return the same to the grantee or disputes debts and securities, the grantee will have to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery thereof and the proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate are by no stretch of imagination, proceedings for recovery or for mandatory injunction.
34. Furthermore, the order granting issuance of the succession certificate does not become executable as decree of the court. It only allows the grantee to receive the debts thereby discharging the debtor of the deceased relieving him from the multiple claims made for such a debt. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this regard has further held in Sushila Devi Vs. State and Ors. [MANU/DE/3075/2017] that no execution proceedings lie against the debtor of the order passed under such proceedings and holder has to establish his claim independently in a civil suit. The findings of the court were as follows:-
"6. The counsel for the petitioner appears to be under a misconception of law that an order of issuance of Succession Certificate or a Succession Certificate is executable decree against the persons holding the debts and securities of the deceased.
7. A Succession Certificate only entitles the grantee thereof to claim and receive the debts and securities of the deceased, giving a full discharge to the persons who may be holding the said debts and securities, so as to relieve them from claim by multiple persons claiming to be the heirs of the deceased. Before granting such Succession SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 15 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:06:12 +0530 Certificate, in a proceeding for grant of Succession Certificate which in any case is summary in nature, the persons holding debts and securities are not required to be impleaded and a perusal of the order dated 14th November, 2014 ordering issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner also does not show Axis Bank, Khan Market, New Delhi and New India Insurance Co. Ltd. claimed to be holding the said debts and securities of the deceased to be parties thereto. Merely because an applicant for Succession Certificate has averred in the petition that the debts and securities mentioned in the application are due to the deceased, is no proof of the said debts and securities being due to the deceased and a proceeding for grant of Succession Certificate is not meant for adjudication of the said issues. If the persons who are claimed to be holding the debts and securities of the deceased dispute the claim, the entitlement in law of the grantee of the Succession Certificate is only to make a legal claim against them and not to execute the Succession Certificate or an order granting Succession Certificate.
9. I find the Supreme Court in Banarsi Dass Vs. Teeku Dutta MANU/SC/0333/2005 : (2005) 4 SCC 449 to have held (i) that the main object of a Succession Certificate is to facilitate collection of debts on succession and afford protection to parties paying debts to representatives of the deceased person; (ii) 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; (iii) such a Certificate does not give any general power of administration on the estate of the deceased; (iv) the grant of a certificate does not establish title of the grantee as the heir of the SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 16 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:06:16 +0530 deceased; (v) 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 or is compelled by a decree of the Court to pay it to the person, he is lawfully discharged; and, (vi) the grant of a certificate does not establish a title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased, but only furnishes him with authority to collect his debts and allows the debtors to make payments to him without incurring any risk."
35. In the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and others Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and others. [AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2301=2000 AIR SCW 2432] it was held as under :-
"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, 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 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 debts. The grant of a certificate to a person does not give him an absolute right to the debts nor does it bar a regular suit for adjustment of the claims of the heir inter se".
SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 17 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:06:20 +0530
36. Thus, to sum up, it can be inferred that the succession certificate ensures that process of release of debt of the deceased is streamlined and the debtor is provided security against numerous claims. The aim of such certificate is that it acts as conclusive proof for discharge of money against the debtor. The court granting the certificate is not required to determine the question of title and the Court by its order granting the certificate merely authorises one to collect the debts or securities of the deceased who then acts as a trustee to distribute the amount to the legal heirs of the deceased. Even though the proceedings for issuance of succession certificate are summary in nature yet, in terms of Rule 3(d) of Part B- Chapter 6- Volume II of the Delhi High Court Rules, the court can take sufficient evidence to enable it to form an opinion as to who is best entitled to the certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased.
DECISION ON MERITS:
37. Facts of the case shall be analyzed through the prism of legal position enunciated above.
38. As per the pleadings and documents on record, it stands established that the deceased died intestate on 21.02.2024. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inter-alia provides that when a hindu male dies intestate, his property shall first devolves upon the Class-I legal heirs specified in the Schedule of the Act. As per the SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 18 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:06:25 +0530 case of the petitioner, besides the petitioner, deceased has left behind his mother i.e. respondent no. 5 in the present petition. It is stated in the petition that wife of the deceased had already divorced him vide order dated 23.10.2018 passed in HMA No. 1583/18 and there is no reason to disbelieve the same as the said fact has remained uncontroverted throughout the proceeding.
39. Accordingly, upon the death of the deceased, his property devolved upon his daughter/petitioner and his mother/respondent no. 5 equally and simultaneously as both are surviving class-I legal heirs of the deceased. Accordingly, petitioner and respondent no. 5 shall be entitled to issuance of succession certificate qua the debts and securities of the deceased to the extent of ½ share each. As per the death certificate of the deceased, he used to reside at 21/52, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi-110060, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
40. Succession certificate is sought qua following debts and securities of the deceased :-
(i) One saving bank account bearing no. 6113067732 maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Shankar Road, Delhi, having amount of Rs. 1,83,436.02/- as on 30.06.2024.
(ii) One saving bank account no. 3246462311 having amount of Rs.21,021.3.1/- as on 30.06.2024.
SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 19 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:06:29 +0530
(iii) One saving bank account bearing no. 036401506903 maintained with ICICI Bank, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, having amount of Rs.24,978.89/- as on 30.09.2024.
(iv) One PPF account bearing account no.
307500PPF00000000030 maintained with Punjab National Bank, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi, having amount of Rs.12,62,631/- as closing balance as on 23.03.2024 Total value of securities held by deceased turns out to be Rs.14,92,067.22/-.
CONCLUSION:
41. In view of the pleadings and documents placed on record and evidence adduced on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is prima-facie no impediment for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of petitioner and respondent no.5 to the extent of half share each in the debts and securities of the deceased in terms of Ex.RW-1/1, Ex.RW-2/2 and Ex.RW-3/2 (Colly.) having total amount of Rs.14,92,067.22/-.
42. Succession Certificate is granted accordingly in favour of petitioner and respondent no.5 to the aforesaid extent. Succession certificate be drawn on deposit of requisite proportionate court fees of Rs.37,302/- (i.e. Rs.18,651/- each to be deposited by petitioner SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 20 of 21 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:06:35 +0530 and respondent no.5) in terms of Article 12 of Schedule I of Court Fees Act, 1870, as applicable in Delhi and on furnishing an Indemnity Bond and Surety Bond with one surety each within 30 days from today.
43. Since petitioner is a minor, her respective share be kept in term deposit with any nationalized bank/post office till she attains the age of maturity and thereafter be released to her.
44. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by BHARATBHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:06:40 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal) Today i.e. 12.09.2025 ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi Present judgment consists of 21 pages and each page Digitally signed bears my initials. BHARAT AGGARWAL by BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.09.12 18:06:44 +0530 Bharat Aggarwal) ACJ-cum-ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts 12.09.2025 (A) SC No. 88/24 Ramya Hans Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 21 of 21