Delhi District Court
Anita Sharma And Others vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And ... on 26 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA JINDAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-COMMERCIAL
CASES JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI
DLSW030023042023
CNR No. : DLSW03-002304-2023
Under Section : 372 of The Indian Succession Act,
1925
Anita Sharma & Ors.
versus
The State Govt. Of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
a) Succession Court Case No. : 144/2023
b) Name & address of the : 1. Anita Sharma
petitioner W/o Late Shri Manish
Kumar Sharma
2. Anchal Sharma
(minor)
D/o Late Shri Manish
Kumar Sharma
3. Nandini Sharma
(minor)
D/o Late Shri Manish
Kumar Sharma
The petitioner no. 2 and 3
are represented through her
mother and natural
guardian i.e. petitioner no.
1.
Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 1/30
All R/o H.No. E-56,
Mansharam Park, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi
and Presently Residing at:
Flat No. J-3/UG-5, Dilshad
Colony, Delhi 110095
c) Name & address of the : 1. The State (Govt. Of
respondent NCT of Delhi)
Through concerned SDM
2. Sh. Mithun Dutt
Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Ram Dutt
Sharma,
R/o E-56, Mansharam
Park, New Delhi
3. Delhi Transport
Corporation
Through its chairman/
General Manager
Head Office: Indraprasth,
New Delhi 110001
Also at: Delhi Transport
Corporation, Keshavpur
Depot, Dwarka Sector 8,
New Delhi
Date of Institution of petition : 07.08.2023
Date of pronouncement of judgement : 26.03.2024
Petition under section 372 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925
for grant of succession certificate in respect of the debts &
securities of deceased, Late Shri Manish Kumar Sharma.
Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 2/30
JUDGEMENT
1. The Case 1.1 . The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for grant of Succession Certificate under Section 372 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), in respect of debts and securities of the deceased namely Late Shri Manish Kumar Sharma.
2. Petitioner's case:
2.1 . The case of the petitioners is that petitioner no. 1 is the wife of the deceased and petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 are the minor children of the deceased who expired intestate on 21.06.2023 at Mata Roop Rani Maggo and Mahendru Hospital, C-9, Om Vihar, Phase 1, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The deceased was the permanent resident of A-357, Ram Gulab Bag, Nawada, Uttam Nagar, Delhi 110059 which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court.
2.2 . The deceased was an employee of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and was designated as conductor. Prior to the death, deceased was posted at Keshavpur Depot, Dwarka, Sector 8, New Delhi. The parents of the deceased predeceased the deceased. The deceased is survived by three Class I legal heirs i.e., petitioner no. 1 who is stated to be the wife of deceased and petitioner no. 2 and 3 who are stated to be the minor children of the deceased.
2.3 . The petitioner has approached this Court with the instant petition seeking grant of Succession Certificate in respect Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 3/30 of the securities of the deceased i.e. service benefits as mentioned in Ex. PW-1/15 filed by the respondent no. 3/ DTC i.e., the employer of the deceased. The total of which amounts to Rs. 13,49,671/-.
3. Summoning of the Respondents:
3.1 . Notice of the petition was ordered to be published in newspaper and accordingly, publication was effected through newspaper titled as "Veer Arjun" dated 26.08.2023.
3.2 . Notice of the petition were also served upon the respondents who filed their Written Statements.
4. Written Statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 4.1 . The respondent no. 2 in its written statement has raised certain preliminary objections such as petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the petitioners intentionally gave wrong information to mislead the Court; that the petition is not maintainable before this Court being filed without jurisdiction as the working place of the deceased happened to be Keshopur Depot, Delhi 110018 which does not fall under South-West District; that on the one hand the petitioners have claimed in the petition that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased but at the same time the respondent no. 2 has been made party as brother of the deceased; that petitioner no. 1 who has filed the petition for herself and on behalf of petitioner no. 2 and 3 has concealed the true relationship Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 4/30 which she has been maintaining with the deceased what situation has been created by her as she was unaware about the death of her husband; petitioner no. 1 is employed with Rajasthan Police presently posted in Delhi. The petitioner no. 1 made the life of the entire family a hell after which she started living at Dilshad Garden which is her parental home. To pressurize the entire family the petitioner no. 1 used her influence and power of being in police and got a false case registered under Section 376/354/354A/354B/ 380/506/323/34 IPC at PS Bindapur vide FIR No. 798/18. The family of respondent had to face false allegation and then there was a bad name in the society for them. The mother of respondent no. 2 and the deceased brother could not tolerate the insult came to them on filing of the false FIR and ultimately left this world with false blames. Not only this the petitioner no. 1 filed a case under Section 12 of DV Act at Karkardooma Court where the entire family was again dragged. The petitioner no. 1 was not satisfiled and then she got one another FIR registered under Section 406/498A IPC at PS Seema Puri followed by one another case under Section 125 CrPC. Regular threats and then pressure of her influence on the police made the life of the entire family of respondent no. 2 miserable which ended into death of the members of the family.
4.2 . The petitioner no. 1 from the year 2018 till 2023 when the deceased brother of respondent no. 2 expired never tried to settle the matter in any manner rather used her power to exploit the family of respondent no. 2 which included his Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 5/30 other family members. When petitioner no. 1 was informed regarding the illness of her deceased husband she refused and continued to appear in different Courts and only to get issued adverse orders against the family of respondent no. 2. The deceased was employed with DTC and due to the misconduct of petitioner no. 1, respondent no. 2 was impeaded as nominee on 28.01.2019. To face the cases filed by petitioner no. 1, the brother of respondent no. 2 had to take various loans from different credit societies as there was lot of expenses incurred earlier for cases and then for treatment. All the loans have now been cleared by respondent no. 2 after the death of Manish Sharma. A loan of Rs. 2,39,312/- was shown outstanding taken by Late Manish Kumar Sharma from Jwala Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. which has been cleared by respondent no. 2 on 28.06.2023. A loan of Rs. 2 Lacs was taken from Raghav Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. which was also cleared by respondent no. 2 on 10.08.2023. Lacs of rupees were spent on the treatment of deceased Manish Kumar Sharma. The factum of strained relations and no connection of any nature alongwith pendency of several litigations can be seen from a copy of letter dated 02.08.2023. The said letter indicates that during the treatment of the deceased, the petitioner no. 1 never came forwad to assist him in any manner nor she ever inquired about his health. It was only one month after the death of the deceased the petitioner asked the reason to the counsel for the deceased regarding the absence of deceased in the Family Court. According to the admission Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 6/30 of petitioner no. 1 made in the said letter she came to know regarding the death of the deceased on 24.07.2023 whereas the deceased has already expired on 23.06.2023. The petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner does not cover the eligibility of being a legal heir as per the petitioner.
4.3 . Respondent no. 2 by way of its written statement further contended that the details given regarding the depot of DTC is incorrect as the deceased was posted in Keshopur, Dwarka Depot which is not in Dwarka but in Keshopur, Delhi. The petitioners are not the only legal heirs of the deceased but the respondent no. 2 alongwith his brother and sister are also the legal heirs. Respondent no. 2 is the nominee of the deceased which is on record with the record of DTC. The petitioner no. 1 was having a strained relation with the deceased and for the last more than 5 years they were living separately with each other. There were multiple litigation pending before different Courts in Delhi. The absence of such Surviving Member Certificate proves that the petitioner has no right to file the present petition.
5. Written Statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 5.1 . Respondent no. 3/DTC by way of its written statement has contended that the present petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law against respondent no. 3/DTC and is liable to be dismissed since the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 7/30 and material facts. As per the Service Record of the deceased, Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma, there is no name of any of the petitioners as nominee of the deceased and the name of only respondent no. 2, Sh. Mithun Dutt Sharma is mentioned in the service record of the deceased as his nominee, so the petitioners are not entitled for any service benefits of the deceased.
5.2 . Respondent no. 3 by way of its written statement further contended that there is a matrimonial dispute of petitioner no. 1 and the deceased and a case was pending before the Principal Judge, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi, however the deceased has not mentioned anywhere in his service record the names of any of the petitioners as his nominee, so respondent no. 3 is not liable to release the service benefits to the petitioners without obtaining orders/ directions from the Court or from any other competent authority.
5.3 . Respondent no. 3 in its written statement has also mentioned the details of the service benefits of the deceased.
6. Reply on behalf of petitioner to the written statement filed by respondent no. 2 6.1 . In its replication, the petitioner reiterated the submissions made by her in its plaint and denied all the claims, averments and submissions raised in the written statement filed by respondent no. 2. Petitioner further stated that the Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 8/30 the working place have no concern to file the application/ petition for succession under the Indian Succession Act. For the purposes of jurisdiction the permanent residence of the deceased would be looked into. In the present case the deceased ordinarily resided at A-357, Ramgulab Bagh, Nawada, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. The respondent no. 2 is claiming himself to be the nominee of the deceased and therefore, impleaded as respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 is not a class-I legal heir of the deceased. Being a nominee he is not entitled to get anything from the assets and the securities of the deceased. Whatever be the situation between the deceased and the petitioner no. 1, the same will not debar the petitioners from claiming the legitimate and rightful claim under the law of land. The petitioners have filed the petition u/s 125 CrPC vide complaint case No. 323/2018 and vide order dated 19.02.2019. Ms. Reena Singh Naag, Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi passed the maintenance order of Rs. 10,000/-. In that order too the Court had put a query to Late Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma regarding marriage and children, the deceased had categorically admitted the marriage and the two daughters who are petitioners herein. The petitioners have tried their level best to settle the issues with the deceased but the family members of deceased i.e. the respondent no. 2 and other relatives have always instigated the deceased against the petitioners. The petitioners are completely kept under the dark whether any point of time the respondent no. 2 was ever impleaded as nominee. Even otherwise the nominee is not the legal heir Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 9/30 of the deceased and he is not entitled to get any right for the debt and securities of the deceased as per Section 38 and 39 of Insurance Act. The nominee is only the person authorized to receive the benefits and to disburse among the LRs of the deceased and in this case the intention of the alleged nominee i.e. respondent no. 2 is hostile and against the interest of the LRs of the deceased. The respondent no. 2 and other family members of the deceased Manish Kumar Sharma have took the loan in the name of the deceased therefore they were liable to return those loans amount. The deceased was working with DTC and completely protected under DGEHS and there were 11 hospitals where he can take the treatment and accordingly the entire paper filed by the respondent no. 2 alongwith his reply are related to the hospital Mata Roop Rani Maggo Hospital which is covered under the DGEHS and there was a cashless facility so incurring any expenses on the treatment of the deceased are false and baseless. Respondent no. 2 intentionally and deliberately without any basis of substance denying the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners are first class legal heirs of the deceased Manish Kumar Sharma as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
7. Reply on behalf of petitioner to the written statement filed by respondent no. 3 7.1 . In its replication, the petitioner reiterated the submissions made by her in its petition and denied all the claims, averments and submissions raised in the written statement Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 10/30 filed by respondent no. 3. Petitioner further stated that respondent no. 3 in collusion with respondent no. 2 has filed the written statement and both the respondents have taken the similar sort of objections. Since the petitioners have filed the present petition and the pendency of the present petition is well within the knowledge of the respondent, respondent no. 3 is bound to withhold all the service benefits of the deceased till the pendency of the present petition. In the present case, the law of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is applicable and as per the provisions of the said act the petitioners are the only rightful claimant to receive all the service benefits of the deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma as the petitioners are the only Class 1 legal heirs of the deceased namely Manish Kumar Sharma.
8. Issues:
8.1 . On the basis of contentions of the parties, the following issues were identified:
(i) Whether the respondent no. 2 is entitled to any share in the securities of the deceased? (OPR)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of succession certificate in terms of 'The Indian Succession Act, 1925"?
(iii) Relief.
9. Petitioner's Evidence:
9.1 . To prove its case, the Petitioner examined herself as a witness as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 11/30 affidavit Ex. PW-1/A bearing his signatures at points A & B respectively and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Copy of death certificate of deceased, Late Sh.
Manish Kumar Sharma is Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR);
(ii) Certified copy of order dated 19.02.2019 passed by Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahadra, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in complaint case bearing CC no. 323/18 is Ex. PW-1/2;
(iii) Copy of identity card and Aadhar Card of deceased, Sh. Manish Kumar is Mark A and Mark B respectively.
(iv) Copy of notice issued to DDO/Account Officer/Depot Manager, DTC, Keshopur, Delhi is Mark C;
(v) Copy of birth certificate of petitioner no. 2 is Ex.
PW-1/4 (OSR);
(vi) Copy of birth certificate of petitioner no. 3 is Ex.
PW-1/5 (OSR);
(vii) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 1 is Ex. PW-
1/6 (OSR)
(viii) Copy of Election Identity Card of petitioner no. 1 is Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR);
(ix) Copy of letter dated 31.07.2023 addressed to Depot Manager is Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR);
(x) Copy of letter dated 02.08.2023 addressed to Depot Manager is Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR);
(xi) Copy of death certificate of deceased, Late Sh. Ram Dutt Sharma who is the father of the deceased, Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 12/30 Late Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma is Ex. PW-1/10 (OSR);
(xii) Copy of Surviving Member Certificate is Ex. PW-
1/11 (OSR);
(xiii) Copy of order dated 27.11.2019 in execution no.
158/19 is Mark D;
(xiv) The certified copies of Shamshan Ghat receipt of Late Smt. Usha Sharma who is mother of the deceased, Late Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma is Ex. PW-1/13;
(xv) Letter dated 29.09.2023 filed by respondent no. 3 showing the details of the service benefits of Late Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma and the amount payable is Ex. PW-1/15;
(xvi) Copy of circular dated 19.05.2022 issued by the office of respondent no. 3 is Mark D.
9.2 . PW-1 during her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 deposed that she did not remember the exact date as to till what time she resided in property no. E-56, Mansa Ram Park. However, she is not residing at the said address for the last two and a half-three years. She was residing separately from the deceased approximately 3-4 years prior to his death. PW-1 volunteered to depose that due to the family problems of the deceased with his other family members, however he was having visiting terms with PW-1 and the children. She did not remember against whom the FIR was registered but she only remember the name of Ravi who is her brother in law Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 13/30 (Jeith). She is working with Rajasthan Police posted at Wazirabad, Delhi. She did not know as to the disease that her husband was suffering. Her husband never told her as to where he was undergoing his treatment prior to his death. She did not remember the exact date and place where she met her husband prior to his death. However, approximately, she met him once approximately one and a half month prior to his death. Her husband had good financial condition as he was a government servant. She had no knowledge as to the loans and debts that deceased had. The insurance claim amount of Rs. 7,02,000/- (Rupees seven lacs two thousand only) was received from DTC by her Devar/respondent no. 2. She has read this in the reply filed in the present case. The loan of Cooperative Society was paid by her Devar as he received the insurance claim amount from DTC. She has no knowledge about the treatment that her husband was going in Mata Roop Rani Maggo Hospital. PW-1 volunteered to depose that her husband did not inform her about his treatment. She has no knowledge if respondent no. 2 has cleared the medical bills of her husband at the said hospital. PW-1 volunteered to depose that Mata Roop Rani Maggo Hospital is on the panel of DTC.
9.3 . During the cross examination, PW-1 was confronted with the receipt dated 10.08.2023 issued by Raghav Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society and asked that is she aware with receipts dated 10.08.2023 bearing no. 69870 and 69871 and No Dues Certificate issued by Raghav Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 14/30 Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ex. PW-1/R2X-1 (colly. running into three pages i.e. 8,9 & 10) (OSR), as the loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- of her deceased husband was paid by her Devar/respondent no. 2 after the death of her husband to which PW-1 deposed that she has no knowledge about the repayment of loan paid by her Devar/respondent no. 2 after the death of her husband. She is not aware about any loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- taken by her deceased husband from Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
9.4 . PW-1 when confronted with the copy of No Dues Certificate issued from Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Dated 10.08.2023 and asked is she aware with No Dues Certificate issued by Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Dated 10.08.2023 Ex. PW-1/R2X-2 (OSR), as the loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- of her deceased husband was paid by her Devar/respondent no. 2 after the death of her husband, to which PW-1 deposed that she has no knowledge about the repayment of loan paid by her Devar/respondent no. 2 after the death of her husband.
9.5 . PW-1 when confronted with copies of medical bills and payment receipts from page no. 15 to 48 filed alongwith written statement Mark PW-1/R2X-A (colly.), denied having knowledge of the same. PW-1 when confronted with receipt and No Dues Certificate dated 28.06.2023 issued by the Jawala Cooperative Urban Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Ex. PW-1/R2X-3 (Colly. two pages) (OSR) and asked Is she aware with receipt dated 28.06.2023 Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 15/30 bearing no. 2175 and No Dues Certificate issued by the Jawala Cooperative Urban Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. in the name of deceased, Manish Kumar Sharma as the loan of Rs. 1,83,610/- of her deceased husband was paid by her Devar/respondent no. 2 after the death of her husband, to which witness has deposed that she does not have any knowledge about the said loan or its repayment by respondent no. 2. PW-1 when confronted with a handwritten letter dated 28.01.2019 given by her deceased husband to DTC Mark PW-1/R2X-B appointing respondent no. 2 as his nominee and deleting the name of petitioner no. 1, PW-1 after seeing the same, deposed that she has no knowledge regarding the said letter and her name was never being mentioned as the nominee in the records of DTC.
9.6 . PW-1 agreed to the suggestions put by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 that one FIR no. 798/2018 u/s 376/354/506 IPC was registered by her at PS Bindapur; that one FIR u/s 406/498A IPC was registered by her against the deceased husband and his family members at PS Seema Puri.
9.7 . PW-1 denied to the suggestions put by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 that she was not having good relations with her husband and in laws and she was not living with her husband from the last 5-6 years prior to his death; that due to her job in Rajasthan police, she got false case registered against her husband and in laws; that the Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 16/30 petitioners are not entitled to get the Succession Certificate in their favour; that due to her own conduct, she got separated from her husband Manish and regularly kept on harassing family of her in laws since she has not taken any care of her husband; that she does not have any right to claim any service benefits from respondent no. 3/DTC.
9.8 . Vide order dated 01.02.2024, plaintiff's evidence was closed and the matter was then listed for respondent's evidence.
10 . Respondent's Evidence:
10.1 .To rebut the case of the petitioner, respondent no. 2 examined himself as RW-1. RW-1 tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1/1 bearing signature at points A and point B and relied upon the following documents:
(i) No dues certificate and receipt issued by Raghav Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. is already Mark PW-1/R2X-1 (Colly.)(OSR);
(ii) No dues certificate issued by Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. isalready Ex. PW-1/R2X-2 (OSR);
(iii) Medical Bills is already Ex. PW-1/R2X-A (Colly.).
(iv) No dues certificate and receipt issued by Jwala Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. is already Mark as PW-1/R2X-3 (Colly.)(OSR) Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 17/30
(v) Letter issued by deceased Sh. Manish Sharma to DTC appointing respondent as nominee is already Mark PW-1/R2X-B. 10.2 .RW-1 who is stated to be the brother of the deceased when cross examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner deposed that he is 12th class pass. He cannot understand the English language. The mother of the deceased Manish Kumar Sharma was predeceased to him and she was expired on 20.06.2021. The father of the deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma was also predeceased to him and was expired on 22.02.2014. He did not know the exact date of the marriage held between the petitioner no. 1 and deceased Manish Kumar Sharma, however the same was held in the year 2009. The deceased Manish Kumar Sharma was blessed with two daughters i.e., the petitioner no. 2 and 3.
He is working with Zomato since last six months and prior to the present job he was working with Manoj Audio and Video Shop as a Finance Executive cums Sales Executive from the year 2005. He was earning from the said job Rs. 10 to 18 thousand. He had received the notices from Jwala Cooperative Society, however the same are not placed on record. He did not remember on what amount he had settled the loan of Late Manish Kumar Sharma with Jwala Cooperative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. RW-1 volunteered to depose that he has filed documents on record. He made the payment to the above said society through cash as well as through Bank. He made the payment of the loan of Late Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 18/30 approximately Rs. 9 lakhs. However, he has not placed on record, the entire details of the payment made towards the loan standing in the name of deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma at the time of his death. He has also taken a loan from Jwala Cooperative Thrift Society Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs but he has not placed on record the documents regarding his loan in this case; that he has not placed on record any document which can suggest that he was the guarantor of Late Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma in the abovestated loan account. RW-1 volunteered to depose that the friends of Late Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma who are walking with the DTC are also the guarantors in the abovestated loans. The deceased was having Bank Account in Syndicate Bank, Mohan Garden Branch, Delhi and Axis Bank Branch Uttam Nagar. He did not disclose regarding the bank accounts of deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma to his counsel while filing the reply in the present case. The deceased Manish Kumar Sharma was residing at E-56, Mansaram Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi at the time of his death. He made the payment to Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. against the loan of deceased of Rs. 2,40,000/- again said he did not remember. He did not remember how the said payment was made by him, he has already filed the paper on records. Most of the payments he had made towards the loan of deceased Manish Kumar Sharma in cash and Paytm/ online transfers.
10.3 .RW-1 further deposed that deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma was suffering from jaundice and he was Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 19/30 succumbed to death from this illness and deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma was not suffering from any ailment. Deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma was suffering from the abovesaid illness since December 2022 and he took the treatment initially from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, thereafter in one small clinic behind their residence and thereafter and finally, in the Mata Roop Rani Maggo Hospital. He has not placed on record any bill of his credit card. He did not intimate the petitioners with regard to the claim made to DTC in respect of the insurance policy lying with Aviva Life Insurance. He has not placed on record the statement of account of his bank in which the insurance amount of Rs. 7,02,200/- was credited. RW-1 volunteered to depose that he had informed the petitioners regarding the death of the deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma to the petitioner on 21.02.2023 through counsel. He is not entitled to get any Succession Certificate being Class 2 legal heirs of Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma. The petitioners are entitled to get the Succession Certificate being Class 1 legal heirs of the deceased as wife and daughters.
10.4 .RW-1 during his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for petitioner agreed to the suggestions that he was the guaranteer in the loan taken over by the deceased Manish Kumar Sharma; that he did not remember when the said loans were taken by deceased Manish Kumar Sharma. RW- 1 volunteered to depose that he has filed the documents on record; that Mata Roop Rani Maggo Hospital is on the Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 20/30 panel of the respondent no. 3/DTC. RW-1 volunteered to depose that the payment of hospitalization was not borne by DTC; that the deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma got hospitalised in Mata Roop Rani Maggo Hospital on 17.06.2023 and expired on 21.06.2023; that the final bill except the medical bills was raised by Mata Roop Rani Maggo Hospital and the same was filed by him at page no. 30 of Mark- X; that the payment reflected in receipt dated 17.06.2023 was made from the debit card of deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma; that the card bearing no. 81124004 belongs to the deceased; that he received the insurance amount of deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma in his bank account. RW-1 was shown the page no. 33 wherein he has admitted that the card bearing no. 81124004 belongs to the deceased.
10.5 .RW-1 during his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for petitioner denied to the suggestions that the payment of treatment was made from the debit card of the deceased; that all the debit card and credit cards of deceased Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma are in his possession. RW-1 volunteered to depose that all the payments have been made from his credit card; that he is not entitled to get any Succession Certificate being class-2 legal heirs of Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma; that the petitioner are entitled to get the Succession Certificate being class-1 legal heirs of the deceased as wife and daughters; that he has manipulated the payment made to the abovesaid loan accounts and therefore, he has not furnished the entire Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 21/30 details of the settlement with the societies and payments; that he intentionally not placed on record his statements of account and the statements of account deceased Manish Kumar Sharma since the entire treatment was made from the account of deceased Manish Kumar Sharma and the payments made to the Societies and Banks of loan from the insurance amount of Rs. 7,02,000/-; that he is deposing falsely.
10.6 .Vide order dated 15.02.2024, respondent's evidence was closed. The matter was then fixed for final arguments.
11 . Final Arguments:
11.1 . Submissions on behalf of petitioner 11.1.1 . During the course of final arguments, it was argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for petitioner that petitioner no. 1 is the wife of deceased who expired on 21.06.2023. The wife and children of the deceased are Class-I legal heirs of the deceased who are the petitioners in the present case.
The respondent no. 2 has contested the present case on the ground that respondent no. 2 was the nominee in the records of Delhi Transport Corporation wherein the deceased was an employee. By way of the present petition, the petitioners seeks service benefits of the deceased. It was argued that it is a well settled law that the nominee is a mere collector and can under no circumstances be treated as legal heir for the purposes of grant of succession certificate. Although, the petitioner no. 1 and the deceased was under matrimonial litigation, however the marital ties Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 22/30 never severed. Finally, it was prayed that the succession certificate be issued in favour of the petitioner.
11.1.2 . In support of its case, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following citation:
. Suman Kumar @ Suman Singh v. Nand Kishor @ Ors. decided on 06.11.2020 in W.P. (C ) 6701/2018 and C.M. Nos. 25451/2018, 41307/2019 and 11129/2020;
. Smt. Shweta Singh Huria & Ors. v. Smt. Santosh Huria & Anr. decided on 18.05.2021 in RFA 310/2020 and CM No. 34490/2020;
. K. Gangadhara Srinath @ A. Sree Rama Murthy v.
Dr. K. Babu Venu Gopal & Ors. 2005 STPL 7718 AP;
. Rampali v. The State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
decided on 24 April 2017 in FAO no. 184/2017. . Thankam Vs. Rajan 1998 STPL 10448 Kerala (AIR 1999 Kerala 62).
11.2 . Submissions on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3 11.2.1 . Per contra, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent that the petitioner no. 1 never resided with the deceased. The respondent no. 2 who is the brother of the deceased took care of the deceased as well as paid medical bills of the deceased. The policy amount that was received by respondent no. 2 being the nominee of the deceased was all spent on the loan taken by the deceased. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that respondent no. 2 is the Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 23/30 nominee and the petitioner is no where the nominee. Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 2 also pointed out towards the cross-examination of PW 1 to state that she was not concerned with the deceased and was neither aware of the death of the deceased nor participated in the last rites of the deceased. It was the respondent no. 2 who took care of the deceased.
12 . Heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and respondents. This Court has carefully perused the evidence on record in light of the contents of the petition and the replies thereto. This Court has also considered the oral submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for both parties.
13 . Appreciation and Findings:
13.1 .Issue no. (i)
(i) Whether respondent no. 2 is entitled to any share in the securities of the deceased ? (OPR) 13.1.1 . The onus to prove this issue was upon the respondent no. 2.
13.1.2 . As per the petitioner, the deceased was survived by three class I legal heirs i.e. petitioner no. 1 who is stated to be the wife of the deceased and petitioner no. 2 and 3 who are stated to be the minor children of the deceased. On a conjoint reading of Section 8 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 alongwith Schedule I appended thereto, it is clear that the petitioners being the legal heirs of the Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 24/30 deceased are entitled to their respective share in the securities of the deceased. Respondent no. 2 who is stated to be the brother of the deceased is claiming share in the securities of the deceased in the instant petition of the petitioner. In terms of the Schedule appended to The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the brother of the deceased does not fall in the category of Class-I legal heir rather brother of the deceased would fall within Class-II legal heir. Despite being a Class-II legal heir, respondent no. 2 seeks his share in the securities of the deceased, hence, the onus is upon respondent no. 2 to prove as to his entitlement in the securities of the deceased.
13.1.3 . The defence raised by respondent no. 2 by way of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 is that respondent no. 2 is the nominee of the deceased, in the records of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) wherein the deceased was an employee and was designated as Conductor. Respondent no. 3 who represented Delhi Transport Corporation in its written statement submitted that the name of only respondent no. 2 is mentioned in the service records of the deceased as the nominee of the deceased. It was also submitted that the service record of the deceased does not mention the names of any of the petitioner as his nominee.
13.1.4 . It is a settled preposition of law that the nominee would not confer any beneficial interest on the nominee and the nominee is only an authorized hand to receive the Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 25/30 amount which is subject to disbursement amongst the legal heirs under the Law of Succession, governing the parties. Hence, respondent no. 2 does not have any claim over the securities of the deceased, being Class-II legal heir when the deceased is survived by Class-I legal heirs i.e. the petitioners who are the wife and children of the deceased.
13.1.5 . The other defence of respondent no. 2 that petitioner no. 1 was having strained relations with the deceased, the deceased and the petitioners were living separately with each other, multiple litigations were pending is not tenable because it is not in dispute that on the date when the succession opened i.e. date of death of the deceased (21.06.2023), the petitioner no. 1 was the widow and is a Class-I legal heir as per The Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
13.1.6 . The contents of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 with regard to the strained relations between petitioner no. 1 and the deceased and that there existed matrimonial dispute is not relevant for the purposes of adjudicating the issues raised in the present petition. The defence of respondent no. 2 that all the loans of the deceased was cleared by respondent no. 2 and lakhs of rupees were spent on the treatment of the deceased is also not tenable as such a contention of respondent no. 2 cannot displace the natural succession to the securities of the deceased.
Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 26/3013.1.7 . In view of the above, respondent no. 2 is not entitled to any share in the securities of the deceased in terms of Law of Succession, as applicable. Hence, this Issue is decided against respondent no. 2 and in favour of the petitioners.
13.2 .Issue no. (ii)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of Succession Certificate in terms of 'The Indian Succession Act, 1925'? (OPP) 13.2.1 . The onus to prove the issue was upon the petitioner.
13.2.2 . The deceased died intestate qua debts and securities which are mentioned in the petition as well as in the testimony of PW-1. The said securities are the service benefits of the deceased, namely Late Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma held with Delhi Transport Corporation, Keshopur Depot, New Delhi where deceased was employed as conductor vide batch no. 26261. The details of the service benefits as per document, Ex. PW-1/15 is as under:
S.No. Nature of Amount(Rs.)
security
1. Gratuity Rs. 6,35,068/-
2. Leave salary Rs. 51,981/-
3. Employee Rs. 47,042/- (as per slip for the
share month of June 2023)
4. Employer Rs. 6,15,580/- (as per slip for
share the month of June 2023)
Total Rs. 13,49,671.00/-
Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 27/30
13.2.3 . Therefore, the total value of the above mentioned
securities held by the deceased for which Succession Certificate has been applied for is an amount of Rs. 13,49,671.00/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs forty nine thousand six hundred seventy one only).
13.2.4 . At this juncture, it is relevant to mention the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi, AIR 2000 SC 2301, 2000 (3) ALT 35 SC, 2001 (49) BLJR 813, wherein, 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 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".
13.2.5 . From the oral and documentary evidence on record, prima facie it can be said that the deceased was the resident of A-357, Ram Gulab Bagh, Nawada, Uttam Nagar, West, Delhi 110059 which is reflected in the death Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 28/30 certificate, Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR). The matter thus, falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. The father of the deceased died on 21.02.2014 and the mother of the deceased died on 20.07.2021 which are reflected in the death certificate Ex. PW-1/10 and cremation slip Ex. PW-1/13 respectively. The deceased who expired on 14.11.2019 was survived by two legal heirs i.e. petitioner no. 1 who is stated to be the wife of the deceased, petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 who are stated to be the minor children of the deceased. In view of the findings at Issue no. (i), respondent no. 2 cannot be considered as a legal heir for the purposes of grant of succession certificate in the instant petition. There is also no impediment under Section 370 of the Act to grant Succession Certificate with respect to debts and securities as mentioned in the petition.
13.2.6 . In view of the foregoing reasons, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no. 2.
14 . Relief:
14.1 .This Court holds that the petitioner no. 1 who is stated to be the wife of the deceased and petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 who are stated to be the minor daughters of the deceased are entitled to grant of Succession Certificate under Section 373 of the Act in respect of the securities of the deceased namely, Sh. Manish Kumar Sharma, Ex.
Employee of DTC/conductor vide Batch no. 26261 i.e. service benefits to the tune of Rs. 13,49,671.00/- (Rupees Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 29/30 thirteen lakhs forty nine thousand six hundred seventy one only) (as per Ex. PW-1/15) held with Depot Manager, Delhi Transport Corporation, Kesho Pur Depot, New Delhi-110018. Petitioners are also entitled to interest/ dividend/ bonus/ consequential benefits, if any, accrued thereupon. (Details of the securities is mentioned in the table of para no. 13.2.2).
14.2 .The share of petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 who are stated to be the minor daughters of the deceased be disbursed in favour of their natural guardian/mother i.e. petitioner no. 1/Smt. Anita Sharma. It is impressed upon petitioner no. 1 to utilize the amount for the benefit of petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3.
14.3 .Accordingly, Succession Certificate be issued to petitioner no. 1 on filing of corresponding court fees in terms of Article 12 Schedule I of Court Fees Act, 1870 as applicable in Delhi and Indemnity-cum-surety bond of the like amount, within 30 days from today.
14.4 .Petition is accordingly, disposed of.
Pronounced in the open Court (Anuradha Jindal)
on 26.03.2024 ACJ-CCJ-ARC,
South West District,
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 30/30
Succ. Court/144/2023 Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) & Ors. Page 31/30