Delhi District Court
Tanisha vs State on 22 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ASHWANI PANWAR, ACJ/CCJ/ARC,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. : DLND030018992024
Under Section : 372 of The Indian Succession Act,
1925
Succession Court Case No. : 70/2024
1. TANISHA
D/o Late Sh. Shankar Mehto
2. MASTER DEEPAK
S/o Late Sh. Shankar Mehto
Both r/o I-130, Janak Vihar,
Pusa Campus, IARI Delhi- 110012 ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI,
2. CANARA BANK
IARI, Pusa Branch, Delhi
3. INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Pusa, New Delhi
4. MRS. MANISHA
W/o Sh. Tarun Kumar
Succ Court Case No. 91/2024 TANISHA & Ors vs State & Ors. Page 1 of 7
R/o Ward no. 12, SAS Nagar
Malout, Sri Muktsar Sahib
Punjab-152107 ..... Respondent.
Date of Institution : 23.10.2024
Final arguments heard on : 22.01.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 22.01.2025
Petition under section 372 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925
for grant of succession certificate in respect of the debts &
securities of deceased, Late Shankar Mehto.
JUDGEMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner 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 deceased, Late Shankar Mehto.
2. Factual Matrix: The case of the petitioners is that, the petitioner no. 1 is the daughter of the deceased and petitioner no. 2 is son of the deceased. It is averred that deceased namely, Late Shankar Mehto died on 25.10.2020. It is further averred that deceased last resided at Janak Vihar, Pusa Campus, Delhi which falls within the jurisdiction of this court. It is further averred that deceased was survived by only two class 1 legal heir that is, petitioner no. 1 (daughter of the deceased) and petitioner no. 2 (son of the deceased). The petitioners have approached this court Succ Court Case No. 91/2024 TANISHA & Ors vs State & Ors. Page 2 of 7 with the instant petition seeking grant of succession certificate in respect of securities of the deceased, that is, terminal benefits of the deceased.
3. Summoning of respondents and chain of subsequent events: Notice of the petition was ordered to be published in newspaper and accordingly, publication was done in newspaper titled as "The Statesman on 26.11.2024" and "Veer Arjun" on 02.12.2024, but none appeared on behalf of public at large, to raise any objection to grant of succession certificate in favour of petitioners
4. Pursuant to the notice, official on behalf of SDM has appeared and filed relevant record regarding surviving members of the deceased.
4.1 Official on behalf of respondent no.2 & 3 have appeared and filed relevant record in respect of debts and securities of deceased.
4.2 Respondent no. 4 has appeared and submitted that she has no objection if succession certificate is issued in favour of petitioners.
5. Evidence adduced by the petitioner: Petitioner no. 1 examined herself as PW1. She has tendered her evidence by Succ Court Case No. 91/2024 TANISHA & Ors vs State & Ors. Page 3 of 7 way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A & B. She has relied upon the documents as follows:
i) Copy of death certificate of deceased - Ex.PW1/1 (OSR);
ii) Copy of Aadhar Card - Ex.PW1/2(OSR);
iii) Copy of the passbook of syndicate bank- Ex.PW1/3 (OSR);
iv) Copy of Employment ID Card - Ex.PW1/4(OSR);
v) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 1 - Ex.PW1/5(OSR);
vi) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no. 2 - Ex.PW1/6(OSR);
vii) List of legal heirs - Ex.PW1/7;
viii) List of debt and securities- Ex.PW1/8;
ix) Copy of Aadhar Card of Smt. Manisha - Mark A.
6. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed and final arguments were heard.
7. Arguments, Appreciation of Evidence and Reasons: I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material placed on record and considered the submissions advanced.
8. In Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. v.
Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi, AIR 2000 SC 2301, 2000 (3) ALT 35 SC, 2001 (49) BLJR 813, it was held as under:
Succ Court Case No. 91/2024 TANISHA & Ors vs State & Ors. Page 4 of 7" 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".
9. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, prima facie findings are as under:-
a) The deceased Late Shankar Mehto last resided at PUSA Campus, Delhi, as reflected in plaint as Succ Court Case No. 91/2024 TANISHA & Ors vs State & Ors. Page 5 of 7 well as death certificate Ex. PW1/1. The matter thus, falls within the jurisdiction of this court.
b) Deceased Late Shankar Mehto expired on 25.10.2020 leaving behind only two class I legal heirs, that is, petitioner no. 1 (daughter of the deceased) and petitioner no. 2 ( son of the deceased).
11. Debts and Securities: The deceased died intestate qua debts and securities which are mentioned in the petition, testimony of PW-1 and record filed by official of respondent no.
3. The details of the same are as follows:
S.No Terminal Particulars Amount
. benefits of
Total Value
1. Late Sh. GPF-Rs. 41,884/- Rs. 12,48,447/-
Shankar
DCRG-8,49,420/-
Mehto
Leave encashment-Rs.
3,57,143/-
Total Rs.12,48,447/-
12. Therefore, the total value of the securities held by the deceased for which succession certificate has been applied for is Rs.12,48,447/-.
Succ Court Case No. 91/2024 TANISHA & Ors vs State & Ors. Page 6 of 713. The aforesaid claim of the petitioners have gone unrebutted and none has appeared on behalf of the public to contest the claim of the petitioners. 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.
14. Conclusion: In view of the reasons spelled above, this court holds that petitioners are entitled to grant of succession certificate to the extent of their shares i.e. one-half each (1/2 each) in respect of aforementioned securities, that is, an amount of Rs.12,48,447/-. Petitioners are also entitled to interest/dividend/ consequential benefits, if any, accrued thereupon.
15. Accordingly, succession certificate be issued to petitioners to the extent of their shares i.e. one-half each (1/2 each) in the securities of the deceased 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. Petition is accordingly, disposed of. Digitally signed by Ashwani Ashwani Panwar Announced in the open Panwar Date:
2025.01.22 16:44:27 court today i.e. 22.01.2025. +0530 ASHWANI PANWAR ACJ-CCJ-ARC/NDD, PHC New Delhi: 22.01.2025 Succ Court Case No. 91/2024 TANISHA & Ors vs State & Ors. Page 7 of 7