Delhi District Court
Smt. Nirmal Ramteke vs The State & Ors on 25 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP GARG :
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Petition No. : 122/2005
Unique ID No : 02401C0112372005.
In the matter of:
Smt. Nirmal Ramteke,
W/o. Late Sh. P.J. Ramteke,
R/o. DA33/A, Hari Nagar,
New Delhi.
....Petitioner.
Versus
The State & Ors.
.....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 09.02.2005
Date of order when reserved : 25.05.2015
Date of order when announced : 25.05.2015
J U D G M E N T :
1 The present petition has been filed for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of petitioner in respect of debts and securities left by Sh. P.J. Ramteke, who had expired in Delhi on 18.11.2004, claiming that the deceased was her husband.
Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 2 After filing of the petition, notice of the petition was given to the general public by way of publication in the newspaper 'The Indian Express' dated 21.07.2006, but no one appeared from general public to oppose or contest the petition.
3 Statements of LRs/Respondents namely Sh. Sidharth Ramteke and Sh. Rahul Ramteke had been recorded in court on 15.09.2006 with regard to their no objections to grant of succession certificate in favour of petitioner Smt. Nirmal Ramteke. 4 Objector namely Smt. Tara @ Nirmala had filed objections in the present petition. It is averred by the objector that the present petition has been made by concealing material and relevant facts. The deceased was temporarily residing at Delhi due to his service. Otherwise, he was ordinarily residing with her. She was married to the deceased on 26.05.1983 and petitioner can not be the wife of the deceased, as during the subsistence of her marriage with the deceased, no valid marriage could have taken place. The deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke had nominated his mother Smt. Laxmibai. The deceased was Buddhist and therefore, even alleged marriage by Hindu rites is not Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 allowed under law. She was married to the deceased on 26.05.1983 at New Municipal High School, Hinganghat, District Wardha as per Buddha rites and customs prevailed in the society. Out of her wedlock with the deceased, a female child namely Kumari Poonam was born on 18.11.1986. Deceased was in service at Pulgaon Depot, District Wardha in COD department in the year 197475 and thereafter, he was transferred to COD office at Delhi in the year of MarchApril 1981. She was in service in the Department of Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board. Her job was transferable and therefore, she used to stay at Hinganghat.
5 Employer of the deceased had filed objections in the present petition. It is averred by employer of deceased that Sh. P. J. Ramteke was married to another woman prior to his marriage with the petitioner. The deceased was working as a Hindi Officer in Language Deptt., Govt. of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. 01.08.1994 and expired after long illness on 18.11.2004. The deceased was married to another woman namely Smt. Tara @ Niramala R/o. Kaji Ward, Near Buddha Vihar, Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha, Maharashtra on 26.05.1983 i.e. prior to the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased.
Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 6 Petitioner filed reply to the objections filed by objector and employer of deceased. She denied all the claims made by them. She averred that the objector was never married to the deceased and there is no question of giving birth to Poonam by the objector. Before marriage, nomination was in the name of Smt. Luxmi Bai, mother of the deceased and after his marriage, it was made in the name of petitioner. The objector never resided with the deceased at any point of time. Objector is an employee of Kamgar Kalyan Kendra, Hinghanghat, Distt. Wardha. Last rites of the deceased were performed by the petitioner at his residence in Hari Nagar. LTC for Kanya Kumari was also availed by the deceased alongwith her and her two sons. Objector Smt. Tara has changed her name as Nirmala as per the Gazette Notification issued on 21.08.2003.
7 On 06.12.2007, the court had recorded the statement of the petitioner U/o. 10 CPC. She stated that she was married to deceased Padmakar J. Ramteke on 02.12.1984 at Hari Nagar, Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremony. Her marriage is not registered. However, photographs of marriage were taken. P1 to Ex. P24 are the photographs of her marriage ceremony including phera ceremony. Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 Mother of the deceased attended her marriage. Out of this wedlock, two sons namely Sidharth and Rahul were born on 18.06.1985 and 13.01.1988 respectively. Ex. P25 and Ex. P26 are the proof of their date of birth respectively and the name of their father has been mentioned as Padmakar J. Ramteke. Ex. P27 to Ex. P29 are her caste certificates and her two sons. The copies of Identity card issued by Delhi Secretariat, ration card showing the name of her husband, Passport, PAN card, Driving License and the passbook of State Bank of India, Old Secretariat are Ex. P30 to Ex. P35. Ex. P36 is the copy of passbook of Bank of India, Malai Mandir, R.K. Puram in her name which clearly shows the name of her husband. The receipt of cremation ground showing that she deposited the charges in the cremation ground regarding cremation of her deceased husband, Ex. P37.
8 On 06.12.2007, the court had recorded the statement of respondent namely Tara @ Nirmala Padmakar Ramteke U/o. 10 CPC. She stated that she was married to deceased Padmakar J. Ramteke on 26.05.1983 at New Municipal High School, Hinganghat, Distt. Vardha, Maharashtra according to Bodh Vivah ceremony. Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 are the photographs of her marriage; Ex. R3 is the marriage invitation card alongwith envelope; Ex. R4 is the hand written certificate issued by 13 persons, who attended the marriage; Ex. R5 to Ex. R20 i.e. the letters written by her husband to her; Ex. R21 i.e. one inland letter written by her husband's brother and sister in law (Jaithani), Ex. R21. Her original name was Tara and after her marriage, her husband re named her as Nirmala; Ex. R22 is Gazette published by Maharashtra government dated 29.08.2003 which reflects her name as Tara @ Nirmala Padmakar Ramteke. Out of her wedlock, one daughter was born on 18.1.1986. Ex. R23 is a certificate dated 12.01.2005 from Tehsildar which shows her marriage with Padmakar and date of death of Padmakar; Ex. R24 and Ex. R25 are the certificates issued by School/College which reveals that her daughter Poonam was born from Padamakar Ramteke; Ex. R26 is the school leaving certificate of her husband Padmakar; Ex. R27 to Ex. R38 are 12 photographs showing that Barsi ceremony was conducted one month after the death of the deceased at his native place and Ex. R39 is one original resignation letter prepared by her husband on 21.05.1985, but it was not submitted in the office of his employer.
Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 9 On 22.04.2008, the court had recorded the statement of Sh. Devi Dass Jyoti Ramji Ramteke U/o. 10 CPC. He deposed that he is the real brother of deceased Padmakar J. Ramteke, who got married to Nirmal Ramteke i.e. the petitioner. Marriage took place on 02.12.1984 at Hari Nagar, Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. He attended the said marriage. Even his mother attended the said marriage. Two sons namely Sidharth and Rahul were born out of this wedlock. As per his knowledge, deceased did not marry any other female till he died. He does not know the lady/objector, who was present in the court. He has not seen this lady at any point of time. 10 On 22.04.2008, the court had recorded the statements of Smt. Shakuntala Tukaram Rangari and Smt. Nirmala Gajanan Patil U/o. 10 CPC. They stated that they are real sisters of the deceased. They gave statements on lines similar to that of Sh. Devi Dass Jyoti Ramji Ramteke.
11 During the pendency of the petition, respondent Smt. Tara @ Nirmal Ramteke expired leaving behind only a daughter namely Ms. Poonam, who was impleaded as respondent vide order dated Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 16.07.2013.
12 In order to substantiate her case, the petitioner herself examined as PW1. She deposed that she was married to the deceased Padamakar J. Ramteke on 02.12.1984 at Hari Nagar, Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. They rely upon the documents exhibited in her statement U/o. 10 CPC. Death certificate of the deceased is Ex. P38. The deceased was ordinarily a resident of DA33/A, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. Electoral roll, 2003 showing the name of the deceased is Ex. P38A. During his employment, Sh. P.J. Ramteke had been allotted the Govt. accommodation bearing no. DA33/A, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The mother of the deceased namely Laxmi Bai died on 02.05.2004 at Pulgaon Distt. Wardha, Maharashtra. The deceased has left behind service dues. She is entitled to get the service dues being his legally wedded wife. During his life time, he availed hometown LTC alongwith the petitioner and his sons for visiting Pulgaon, Distt. Vardha, Maharashtra. His last rites were performed by her at his residential Govt. Accommodation at DA33/A, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke was Hindu by religion.
Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 13 During her cross examination, PW1 stated that Devidas Jyotiramji Ramteke is the elder brother of her deceased husband. Her marriage with deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke was arranged marriage. Kriya ceremony of deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke were attended by his two sisters, elder brother of deceased, brother in law of deceased and other relatives.
14 PW3 Smt. Shakuntala Tukaram Rangari deposed that she is the real sister of deceased Padmakar J. Ramteke. Petitioner got married with the deceased on 02.12.1984 at Hari Nagar, Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Deceased was Hindu by religion. She attended the said marriage. Two sons were born out of the said wedlock namely Sidharth and Rahul. Her brother Padmakar J. Ramteke did not marry with the objector Tara or any other female till he died.
15 During her cross examination, PW3 has stated that she was not present in Ex. R27 and Ex. R34. She is also not aware of the fact that Ex. R28 to Ex. R37 i.e. photographs were taken on what occasion or by whom.
Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 16 PW4 Smt. Nirmala Gajanan Patil also deposed on lines similar to that of PW3.
17 During cross examination, PW4 has denied that Ex. PW4/D1 i.e. the letter was written by her. She never wrote any letter to the objector throughout her life. She denied in which context Ex. R28 to Ex. R37 were photographed. She was confronted with portion A to A Ex. PW4/A, whether statement made by her in confronted portion A to A in Ex. PW1/4A or her statement that 'she is not aware that in which context the Ex. R28 to Ex. R37 were photographed' is correct. She has stated that statement made by her in confronted portion A to A in Ex. PW4/A is correct. 18 PW5 Sh. Devi Dass Jyoti Ramji Ramteke also deposed lines similar to that of PW4.
19 During cross examination, PW5 has denied that deceased and he is Buddhist by religion. He has also denied that the deceased performed marriage according to Buddhist rites and rituals on 26.05.1983 at New Municipal High School, Hinganghat, Distt. Vardha Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 (Maharashtra). The deceased was his younger brother. In the photographs Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 of Padmakar, he can not recognize the female person visible in red circle in those photographs. He also does not recognize the female, who is visible in red circle in Ex. R27 and Ex. R34. He can identify the person in circle A in Ex. PW5/X1 as his son Sailesh Kumar. However, he could not identify persons in circle B and circle C. 20 PW6 Sh. George P. Peter, Head Clerk from General Administration Deptt., Delhi Secretariat deposed and filed the letter furnishing the outstanding dues of Mr. P.J. Ramteke, Ex. PW6/1; Ex. PW6/2 is the details of nominee for general purposes and Ex. PW6/3 is a letter dated 08.10.2007 issued by Dy. Secretary (GAD). 21 PW7 Sh. Gudakesh Kumar, Suptd., GAD, LevelII, A Wing, Delhi Secretariat, Delhi deposed and filed a reply with regard to the service dues of Late Sh. P.J. Ramteke, Hindi Officer (GAD), expired on 18.11.2004, Ex. PW7/A (Collectively). 22 On the other hand, in order to substantiate her claim, Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 respondent examined two witnesses. RW1 Ms. Poonam Padmakar Ramteke deposed that her mother Smt. Tara @ Nirmala was legally wedded wife of deceased Padmakar S/o. Late Sh. Jyoti Ram Ramteke and their marriage was solemnized on 26.05.1983 at New Municipal High School, Hinganghat, District Wardha (Maharashtra) as per Buddha rites and customs prevailed in the society. She was born on 18.11.1986, out of the said wed lock. Prior to their marriage, Late Padmakar, her father was in service at Pulgaon, District Wardha (Mahashtra) in COD Department in the year 197475. Thereafter, deceased was transferred to COD office, Delhi in the year MarchApril 1981. Her mother was in service in the Department of Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board and her post was transferable from one city to another city. Therefore, her mother used to stay at Hinganghat. Her mother was known in the society by the name of Sau Tara @ Nirmala. Petitioner wrongly claimed in her petition that she is legally wedded to the deceased in view of her alleged marriage dated 02.12.1984. She further stated that when her mother was already married to the deceased on 26.05.1983, the petitioner can not be wife of the deceased, as during the subsistence of her marriage with her mother, no valid marriage could have taken place. Petitioner is not legally wedded wife Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 of deceased Padmakar Ramteke and her two sons namely Siddharth and Rahul, are not legitimate children of deceased Padmakar. As per Buddha rites and customs, no second marriage is permissible and legal when first marriage is in subsistence and therefore, the alleged marriage of petitioner is null and void in the eyes of law. 23 During cross examination, RW1 stated that her schooling was in Hinganghat, District Vardha, Maharashtra. The name of her mother in Govt. department was Tara Janbandu. Ex. RW1/1 is the caste certificate issued in August 2003. The death of Late Sh. P.J. Ramteke was took place in Delhi on 18.11.2004. She denied that Tara Janbhandu was not the legally wedded wife of Mr. P.J. Ramteke. 24 RW2 Sh. Anand Shrawanji Janbhandu deposed that he is the brother of Smt. Tara @ Nirmala, who was legally wedded wife of deceased Padmakar. The marriage of her sister was solemnized with the deceased on 26.05.1983 at New Municipal High School, Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha (Mahashtra) as per Buddha rites and customs prevalent in the society. Relatives/nears/dears had attended the said marriage ceremony. The joint photographs of the marriage Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 are already Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 in circle at point B and C. One female child namely Kumari Poonam was born on 18.11.1986, who is residing at Kazi ward, Near Buddha Vihar, Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha, Maharashtra.
25 During his cross examination, he stated that Late Ms. Tara Janbhandu was a teacher in Kamgar Kendra, Hinganghat. He has seen the photographs Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 for the first time in the court file. These photographs does not have any negatives. His sister Ms. Tara Janbandhu had changed her name to Nirmala Ramteke after her marriage which was solemnized in the year 1983. Her name was Tara @ Nirmala in the concerned department where she was doing job. He admitted that he had not filed any document which could show that her name was Tara @ Nirmala in the concerned department where she was doing her job.
26 The court has heard submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for both the parties and has perused the record with their able assistance.
Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 27 Ld. counsel for the petitioner has contended that objector is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke as she has failed to prove her marriage with him whereas petitioner got married to the deceased on 06.12.2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Ex. P1 to Ex. P24 are the photographs of her marriage with the deceased; Ex. P25 and Ex. P26 are the birth certificates of her children born from the said wedlock; Ex. P27 to Ex. P29 are the caste certificates prepared by the deceased; Ex. P30 to Ex. P35 are his office I card, ration card, pass port, PAN card, driving license and copy of pass book. Ex. P36 is the passbook of his bank account. Ex. P37 i.e. the receipt of cremation ground showing that her son Rahul deposited the charges of cremation. Ex. P38 i.e. the Death certificate of the deceased. Petitioner is the nominee in the service records of the deceased. Petitioner has also availed LTC alongwith the petitioner with his two sons namely Sidharth and Rahul. Petitioner has performed last rites of the deceased.
28 Ld. counsel for the respondent has contended that petitioner is not legally wedded wife of the deceased. Prior to her alleged marriage, deceased got married to the objector Smt. Tara @ Nirmala Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 on 26.05.1983, as per Buddha rites and customs which prevailed in her society. Petitioner can not be wife of the deceased during the subsistence of her marriage with the objector. Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 are the photographs of marriage of objector with the deceased according to the Bodh Vivah Ceremony. Ex. R3 is the Invitation card of her marriage alongwith envelope. Ex. R4 is hand written certificate issued by 13 persons, who attended the marriage. Ex. R5 to Ex. R20 letters written by the deceased which also bears his signatures. One inland letter written by her husband's brother and sister in law (Jaithani) is Ex. R21.
29 It is no longer res integra that succession petitions are to be decided summarily. Sec. 373 of the Indian Succession Act provides that a succession petition is to be decided in a summary manner and even if court cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which may seem to be too complicated and difficult for determination in a summary proceedings, the Court may nevertheless grant a certificate to a person if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. Thus U/s. 373 of Indian Succession Act, only prima facie case is to be seen and Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 other questions of law and fact which may be complicated are to be decided by a regular civil court.
In the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and others, Appellants Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and others, Respondents. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2301=2000 AIR SCW 2432 it was held that "subsec. (3) of S. 373 of Succession Act which deals with procedure for grant of certificate reveals two things, first adjudication for grant of certificate is summary proceedings and secondly if the question of law and fact are intricate or difficult, it could still grant the said certificate based on applicants prima facie title. In other words the grant of certificate under it is only a determination of prima facie title. This as a necessary corollary confirms that it is not a final decision between the parties. So, it cannot be construed that mere grant of such certificate or a decision in such proceeding would constitute to be decision on an issue finally decided between the parties. If that be so the principle of res judicata cannot be made applicable."
30 In the present petition, petitioner Smt. Nirmal Ramteke and objector Smt. Tara @ Nirmala are both claiming themselves to be the Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 legally wedded wives of the deceased. The petitioner claims that she alone is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke and Rahul and Sidharth are born out of her wedlock with deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke. She had proved various documents in support of her contention. Petitioner claims to have got married with the deceased on 02.12.1984 at Hari Nagar, Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremony. She has proved her marriage photographs. She has also proved caste and educational certificates of her two sons namely Rahul and Sidharth.
31 Objector Smt. Tara @ Nirmala has proved various documents i.e. Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 photographs of her marriage; Ex. R3 is her marriage invitation card alongwith envelope; Ex. R4 a written certificate issued by 13 persons who attended the her marriage with the deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke. Ex. R5 to Ex. R20 are letters in own handwriting of the deceased written to her. Ex. R21 is one inland letter written by her husband's brother and sister in law (Jaithani). Ex. R22 is Gazette notification dated 29.08.2003; Ex. R23 is certificate dated 12.01.2005 issued by Tehsildar; Ex. R24 and Ex. R25 are certificates issued by School/College of Poonam wherein name of her Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 father is reflected as Sh. P.J. Ramteke; Ex. R26 is School leaving certificate of her husband; Ex. R27 to R38 are 12 photographs of Barsi ceremony of deceased conducted one month after death of deceased at his native place and Ex. R39 is original resignation letter dated 21.05.1985 written by the deceased which was not submitted by him to his employer.
32 There is ample material on record to establish that the objector was married to the deceased on 26.05.1983 at Wardha much prior to the marriage of the petitioner. Letters Ex. R5 to R21 written by the deceased to the objector clearly establishes husband wife relationship between the deceased and the objector. These letters have continued even after alleged marriage with the petitioner. Ex. R21 is letter written by deceased's brother and sister in law. Ex. R3 is marriage invitation card and envelope. Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 are photographs of marriage. Ex. R23 is certificate issued by Tehsildar which reflects name of husband of objector to be Sh. P.J. Ramteke. Similarly Ex. R24 and Ex. R25 i.e. certificates issued by School /College of Ms. Poonam also reflect name of her father as P.J. Ramteke. This implies that respondent namely Poonam was born out Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 of wedlock between deceased and respondent Smt. Tara @ Nirmala. RW2 Sh. Anand S. Janbhandhu has also deposed that objector is his sister and photographs Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 reflects his presence in the marriage ceremony of deceased and objector at points B and C. Therefore, he has proved photographs of marriage between deceased and objector. Accordingly, the court holds that objector Smt. Tara @ Nirmala is the legally wedded wife of deceased. The second marriage of deceased with the petitioner, if any, is null and void. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to any share in the debts and securities of deceased. Ms. Poonam, daughter of objector is entitled to two shares i.e. one share of her mother and her own share as at the time when the deceased expired, objector Ms. Tara @ Nirmala and Ms. Poonam, both were in existence. It has been established that Rahul and Sidharth were also born out of relationship between petitioner and deceased. Therefore, the court holds that they will be entitled to 1/4th share each in the debts and securities of the deceased in view of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
33 Since, there is no impediment for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of Ms. Poonam, Rahul and Sidharth in respect of Petition No. 122/2005 2/2 service dues of deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke. Accordingly, a Succession Certificate be issued in favour of Ms. Poonam to the extent of half share and Rahul and Sidharth to the extent of remaining 1/4th share each in respect of service dues of deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke, in terms of Ex. PW6/1, as per which the outstanding dues of the deceased were Rs.15,30,675/. Succession certificate be drawn on deposit of total requisite court fee i.e. Rs.38,267/ and on furnishing an Indemnity Bond with one surety within 15 days. However, it is made clear that before making payment to Ms. Poonam, Rahul and Sidharth, the department will be entitled to deduct the amount legally recoverable by it from the deceased. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SANDEEP GARG)
on 25.05.2015 Administrative Civil Judgecum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi
Petition No. 122/2005 2/2
122/05
25.05.2015.
Present : Sh. Sandeep Garg, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Manish Vaid, Ld. Counsel for objector Ms. Poonam P. Ramteke.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court today, Succession Certificate is issued in favour of Ms. Poonam, Rahul and Sidharth in respect of service dues of deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke. Accordingly, a Succession Certificate be issued in favour of Ms. Poonam to the extent of half share and Rahul and Sidharth to the extent of remaining 1/4th share each in respect of service dues of deceased Sh. P.J. Ramteke, in terms of Ex. PW6/1, as per which the outstanding dues of the deceased were Rs.15,30,675/. Succession certificate be drawn on deposit of total requisite court fee i.e. Rs. 38,267/ and on furnishing an Indemnity Bond with one surety within 15 days. However, it is made clear that before making payment to Ms. Poonam, Rahul and Sidharth, the department will be entitled to deduct the amount legally recoverable by it from the deceased. Petition No. 122/2005 2/2
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sandeep Garg) ACJCumARC (Central)/Delhi 25.05.2015 Petition No. 122/2005 2/2