State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajesh Sharma vs Jalandhar Improvement Trust on 25 September, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 742 of 2016
Date of Institution : 29.09.2016
Date of Decision : 25.09.2017
1. Rajesh Sharma son of Shri Hari Krishana Sharma and Smt.
Sudershan Sharma (wife of Shri Hari Krishana Sharma), now aged
54 years, resident of House No. EF-430, Krishan Nagar, Nehru
Garden Road, Jalandhar.
2. Priyam Bhardwaj Son of Shri Hari Krishana Sharma and
Smt. Sudershan Sharma pre-deceased wife of Shri Hari Krishana
Sharma, now aged 19 years, resident of House No. EF-430,
Krishan Nagar, Nehru Garden Road, Jalandhar.
....Appellants/Decree Holder
Versus
Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar, through its Chairman.
....Respondent/Op.
First Appeal against the order dated
9.8.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. H.K. Sharma, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Prem Kumar, Advocate
First Appeal No. 742 of 2016 2
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
The appellants/decree holders have filed the present appeal against the order dated 9.8.2016 passed in Execution Application No. 98 of 2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) vide which the execution application was dismissed.
2. Smt. Prem Lata Joshi had filed a consumer complaint against the Op, which was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order dated 2.8.1996. Its appeal No. 575 of 1996 was filed before the Hon'ble State Commission and that appeal was allowed vide its order dated 14.7.1997, vide which direction was given to the Improvement Trust to deliver the possession of the quarters allotted to the complainants and thereafter to reschedule the payment of installments. It was left to the Op to get possession from the unauthorized occupants and then to deliver the possession to the complainants or allot alternative quarters to the complainant at the price already fixed. The complainants were also allowed compensation in the form of interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of earnest money till the delivery of the possession.
3. An application was filed by one Late Smt. Sudershan Sharma, on behalf of Smt. Prem Lata Joshi, on the basis of un- registered Will to implead her as a legal heir of Prem Lata Joshi after the death of Smt. Prem Lata Joshi, that application was dismissed vide order dated 24.2.2012 with the observations that the applicant Sudershan Sharma is directed to obtain probate or First Appeal No. 742 of 2016 3 declaration from the Court of competent jurisdiction, on the basis of Will, which was basis for the applicant to implead her as legal heir of Smt. Prem Lata Joshi. Its appeal was filed before the Hon'ble State Commission as First Appeal No. 1618 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.12.2015. It was disposed of with the observations that it is not essential to take probate of the Will, therefore, The District Forum erroneously directed the LRs of Sudershan Sharma to obtain the probate of the Will. The executing Court at the most can ask the party to obtain declaration from Civil Court, if the point is seriously disputed before it.
4. After remand of the case before the District Forum, the District Forum vide impugned order held that applicant Sudershan Sharma is 'Kurmani' of Prem Lata Joshi as daughter of Smt. Prem Lata Joshi was married to son of Smt. Sudershan Sharma. Further Sudershan Sharma could not produce any Will executed by Smt. Prem Lata Sharma in her favour and as to why she executed the Will in favour of the applicant after ignoring her real daughter. Therefore, Smt. Sudershan Sharma cannot be held as legal heir of Smt. Prem Lata Joshi and was not competent to file this application. Similarly after the death of Smt. Sudershan Sharma, her legal heirs i.e. Rajesh Sharma and Priyam Bhardwaj cannot be said to be the legal heirs of Prem Lata Joshi to get possession of Quarter No. 511, Shaheed Bagat Singh Colony, Jalandhar and accordingly, the execution application was dismissed being not maintainable.
First Appeal No. 742 of 2016 4
5. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants/decree holders have filed the present appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The moot question is whether Smt. Sudershan Sharma could be impleaded as legal heir of deceased Prem Lata Joshi, who was original allottee of the quarter. The applicant has filed an application for placing on the record the copy of the Will executed by late Smt. Prem Lata Joshi in favour of Smt. Sudershan Sharma. It is unregistered Will and the natural heirs have not been referred, why those have been ignored. No doubt that probate may not be required in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble State Commission in First Appeal No. 1618 of 2012 but it has been observed by the State Commission in its order dated 24.12.2015 that Executing Court at the most can ask the party to obtain declaration from the Civil Court if the point is seriously disputed before it. It was argued by the counsel for the respondent that Smt. Sudershan Sharma was mother-in-law of the daughter of Smt. Prem Lata Joshi. There is no reference in the unregistered Will produced on the record by Smt. Sudershan Sharma that why the property was bequeathed in her favour ignoring the natural legal heir, therefore, there is a contest between the parties with regard to the validity of the Will placed on the record by the applicant, therefore, the District Forum was justified to order the District Forum to get declaration about the Will of deceased Prem Lata Joshi in favour of Smt. Sudershan Sharma, therefore, the First Appeal No. 742 of 2016 5 order passed by the District Forum is justified. We do not see any illegality in the order. The findings recorded by the District Forum are affirmed.
8. Sequel to the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
10. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER September 25, 2017.
as