Delhi District Court
Anuradha vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 20 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
CCJ-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Dev Chaudhary, DJS
Succ. Court -: 2/2020
Unique Case ID -: DLWT030000032020
Section(s) -: 372 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925
In the matter of -
MS. ANURADHA
D/o- Late Sh. Hawa Singh
W/o- Sh. Lokesh
R/o- Village Ismailpur,
Munda Khera, P.O. Badli,
Dist. Jhajjar, Haryana-124105
......... Petitioner
VS.
1. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
2. SH. MAHAVIR SINGH
S/o- Sh. Bhagwan Singh
VPO Ujwa, Dist. South-West
Delhi-110073
3. SMT. RAJO
W/o- Sh. Mahavir Singh
VPO Ujwa, Dist. South-West
Delhi-110073
4. MS. JASWANTI DEVI
D/o- Late Sh. Baljeet Singh
Village Jhanrola Khera,
Faruk Nagar, Dist. Gurgaon,
Haryana-124501
5. MS. KAVITA
D/o- Sh. Santra Devi
R/o- H.No.G-150, Near Old Achar/Gatta Factory,
Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.1 of 13
Digitally
signed by
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20
15:14:31
+0530
Road No.4, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037
6. THE OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT
Nari Niketan, DWCD, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Jail Road, New Delhi-110064
7. THE DD (Admn.) DWCD, HQ WCD
Kingsway Camp, New Delhi-110009
........ Respondents
1. Name of Petitioner : Anuradha 2. Name of Deceased : Late Sh. Hawa Singh 3. Date of Institution : 07.01.2020 4. Date of Reserving Order : 05.04.2025 5. Date of Decision : 20.05.2025 6. Decision : Allowed
Argued by -: Ms. Akriti Seth, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Sh. S.K. Bhardwaj, Ld. counsel for respondent no.5.
JUDGMENT-
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter, "the Act") by Ms. Anuradha (hereinafter, "petitioner") for grant of succession certificate in her favour in respect of debts and securities left by the deceased Late Sh. Hawa Singh, who was her father.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the deceased Sh. Hawa Singh was working with Department of Women and Child Development as a Care Taker. He got married with the respondent no. 4/Ms. Jaswanti in 1993 and the petitioner was borne out of the wedlock. However, on account of martial discord, the respondent no. 4 left her matrimonial house in the year 2001. A mutual mediation Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.2 of 13 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20 15:14:46 +0530 took place on 25.11.2001 in a Panchayat in presence of family members of both parties and thereafter, the deceased and respondent no. 4 separated and were free to marry anyone. It is stated that the respondent no. 4 thereafter remarried elsewhere. Further, the deceased re-married the respondent no. 5/Kavita in the year 2002 and no child was born out of the wedlock. In the year 2010, the respondent no. 5 also left the deceased, as per the petitioner. The respondent no.2/Mahavir Singh is the father of the deceased, and the respondent no. 3/Rajjo is the mother of the deceased.
3. Pursuant to filing of the petition, notice of the petition was given to all persons interested in the estate of the deceased, including the general public by way of publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' dated 29.01.2020, inviting objections to the grant of succession certificate to the petitioners. However, no one appeared from general public to oppose or contest the petition.
4. A reply has been filed by the respondent no. 5 to this petition, wherein it is averred that the respondent no. 2 and 4 are not legal heirs of the deceased. It is mentioned that the respondent no. 5 is entitled to one third share in the property of the deceased. Further, it is mentioned that the respondent no. 4 and the deceased had both contracted second marriages, and the respondent no. 4 has ceased to be a family member of the deceased, having no interest in his property. It is claimed that the petitioner has claimed the property to the exclusion of other legal heirs of the deceased.
5. The following oral and documentary evidence has been led in this case -
Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.3 of 13 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20 15:14:54 +0530 ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Anuradha (petitioner) Mahavir @ Mahabir Singh RW-2 :
(respondent no.2) Mohan Singh (Nari Niketan, RW-6 :
DWCD) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/1 : Decree sheet dated 20.11.2020 (OSR) Ex.PW1/2 Marriage Certificate of the :
(OSR) petitioner
Copy of Aadhar Card, PAN Card
Ex.PW1/3
: and Election ID Card of the
(OSR)
petitioner.
Copy of Service ID Card, PAN
Ex.PW1/4
: Card and Driving License of the
(OSR)
deceased late Sh. Hawa Singh
Copy of death certificate of the
Ex.PW1/5 :
deceased
Affidavit of the petitioner dated
18.06.2019 alongwith
Mark A (Colly) :
Panchayati mediation
settlement.
Letter dated 11.06.2019 issued
Mark B : by Municipal Counsellor Ms.
Suman Dagar
Form showing deceased
Mark C : nominated his daughter for all
benefits
Mark D : Form 12
Ex.PW1/6 Letter dated 23.11.2019 issued
:
(OSR) by respondent no.6 & 7.
No Objection affidavit of RW-2
Ex.RW2/A :
in favour of the petitioner
Ex.RW2/B
: ID Card of RW-2
(OSR)
Ex.RW6/A : Authority letter of RW-6
Ex.RW6/B Complete service details of the
:
(Colly, running deceased late Sh. Hawa Singh Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.4 of 13 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20 15:15:03 +0530 into 2 pages) Ex.RW6/C : ID Card of RW-6 (OSR)
6. RW6 Sh. Mohan Singh, Senior Assistant, Nari Niketan, DWCD produced on record the complete service details of the deceased late Sh. Hawa Singh. As per the record, following service benefits are due:-
Benefits Amount
Retirement/death gratuity Rs.5,85,192/-
Leave encashment Rs.2,98,200/-
DLIS Rs.60,000/-
GPF Rs. 4,17,392/-
PENSION Rs. 14,200/-
UTGEIS Rs.4,437/-
Total Rs. 13,65,221/-
7. RW2 Mahavir @ Mahabir Singh is the respondent no.2 in this case, who deposed that deceased Late Sh. Hawa Singh was his son who expired on 21.07.2017. He deposed that apart from him, the deceased is survived by the petitioner as the only class - I legal heirs.
He deposed that he has no objection if succession certificate is granted in favour of Ms. Anuradha (petitioner herein) in respect of debts and securities of his deceased son.
8. PW1 Anuradha is the petitioner, who stated that she is the daughter of the deceased late Sh. Hawa Singh, who expired on 21.07.2017. She deposed that the deceased has left behind the debts and securities related to his service. She deposed that herself, respondent no.3/Smt. Rajjo (grandmother), respondent no.4/Ms. Jaswanti Devi (first wife), respondent no.5/Ms. Kavita (second wife) Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.5 of 13 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20 15:15:11 +0530 are the only surviving legal heirs of the deceased. She deposed that there is no other legal heirs except the ones mentioned above. She deposed that the deceased had not executed any Will during his life- time.
9. The witness was duly cross-examined by Sh. S.K. Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.5. She deposed that respondent no.2 was her grandfather, who expired about 06 years ago.
She deposed that her grandfather arrayed as respondent no.2 was wrongly impleaded in the petition as he does not fall in the category of Class-I legal heir. She deposed that marriage between her father late Sh. Hawa Singh and respondent no.4/Smt. Jaswanti Devi was dissolved in the year 2001 and she has since remarried. She deposed that she does not know when the respondent no. 4 got remarried. She deposed that after marriage, the respondent no.4 ceased to be legal heir of the deceased late Sh. Hawa Singh and she has no right in the estate left by the deceased. She deposed that after the death of her father, she and her grandmother are the only legal heirs of the deceased. She denied that respondent no.5/Smt. Kavita is the second wife of the deceased, and she has inherited the estate of the deceased to the extent of 1/3rd share. She deposed that she does not know whether there was any domestic discord between Hawa Singh (deceased) and respondent no.5 as she was very young. She volunteered that respondent no.5 left her father in 2010.
10. Perusal of order dated 07.03.2020 reveals that respondent no.2 had expired, and no other application has been filed by the petitioner regarding him. He has also given his no-objection in favour of the petitioner.
Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.6 of 13 Digitally
signed by
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20
15:15:18
+0530
11. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have given my thorough consideration to the material on record.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that only the petitioner and respondent no. 3 are entitled to shares in the estate of the deceased and the respondent no. 5 is not entitled to any share. It is argued that as per Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the customs etc. are not valid and the divorce in front of the Panchayat is not a valid divorce. It is argued that the marriage of respondent no. 5 with the deceased was void, and she is not entitled to any share in the inheritance of the deceased. It is argued that the respondent no. 5 left the company of the deceased in the year 2010 and has only appeared to claim her share with a malafide intent. Learned counsel has relied upon T. Stella vs. Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Madras HC, W.P. No. 4828/2008), Mahendra Nath Yadav vs. Sheela Devi (SC, Civil Appeal No. 1801/2007, d.o.d. 25.08.2010), Nishan Singh vs. State of Punjab (P&H HC, CRWP No. 763/2021, d.o.d. 27.01.2021), R. Premavathy vs. State Transport Corporation (Madras HC, WP No. 26869/2014, d.o.d. 07.07.2022) and Rajeshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar (2000) 2 SCC 431 in support of his contentions.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has argued that facts admitted are not required to be proved as per law, and which is why, the respondent no. 5 was not examined as a witness in this case. He has argued that after remarriage, the right of the respondent no. 4 in the inheritance of the deceased has extinguished. He has argued that customary divorce is protected under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and after the Panchayat divorce, the deceased Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.7 of 13 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20 15:15:27 +0530 had remarried the respondent no. 5. He has argued that no declaration has been sought by the petitioner to declare the second marriage void and even otherwise, as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even if there is a second wife, all the wives of the deceased are entitled to one share. As such, it is prayed that the respondent no. 5 be also given 1/3rd share in the estate of the deceased.
14. Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 deals with the issuance of succession certificates. On bare perusal of the provisions of Part X of the Act, the following conditions are required to be satisfied before a succession certificate can be issued -
A. The certificate can only be issued qua debt or securities, and debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof, and not where the right is required to be established by letters of administration or probate, B. The certificate can be granted by a Court within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his/her death or if he/she had no fixed place of residence, within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, C. The application for grant of certificate has been filed in accordance with Section 372 of the Act, and notice of the application is to be given in terms of Section 373 of the Act, D. The grantee of the certificate furnishes bond with surety or sureties, if directed by the Court, in terms of Section 375 of the Act, and also furnishes Court fee as per Section 379 of the Act.
Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.8 of 13
Digitally
signed by
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20
15:15:34
+0530
In case the above-mentioned conditions are fulfilled, a succession certificate can be issued by the Court, which shall have effect throughout India, as per Section 380 of the Act. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhvi Amma Bhawani vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai AIR 2000 SC 2301 that grant of certificate is only a determination of prima facie title and in such cases, the Court is to not determine finally as to who has the best right to estate. Only a summary enquiry into the right to the certificate is contemplated by the Act. It is in this light that the present petition is to be decided.
15. There is no dispute at bar regarding certain facts. The petitioner is the daughter of the deceased, and the respondent no. 3 is the mother of the deceased. There is no dispute that they are entitled to their shares being Class I legal heirs of the deceased. The mother of the deceased has not appeared in this case. However, both parties agree that she is entitled to a share in the inheritance of the deceased. The respondent no. 2 has expired, and there is no dispute that he was not entitled to any inheritance given that Class I legal heirs of the deceased are alive. A father is a Class II legal heir, as per the Hindu Succession Act. The deceased Sh. Hawa Singh was a resident of H. No. 318, Ujwa, South-West Delhi-110073 i.e. within jurisdiction of this Court, and he expired on 21.07.2017. Apart from respondent no. 5, no objections have been received by any other person, and public at large. Issuance of certificate is sought only qua debt and securities (apart from family pension), the details of which have been tendered into evidence and there is no bar under Section 370 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of succession certificate. Given that the succession certificate is sought only qua the terminal benefits Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.9 of 13 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20 15:15:41 +0530 of the deceased, there is no doubt that the property up for inheritance is self-acquired property of the deceased.
16. The only dispute is regarding the entitlement of the respondent no. 5 to inherit the property of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 4 was married to the deceased. It is the case that in 2001, the parties separated vide a mutual settlement before a panchayat, and then respondent no. 4 got remarried. The witness PW1 could not depose about the date of remarriage of the respondent no. 4 during her cross examination.
17. The parties have relied upon the settlement before the Panchayat, which is Mark A. This document has not been proved as per law and cannot be read into evidence. Even otherwise, any panchayat settlement does not amount to divorce. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has claimed that a customary divorce is protected under Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, there is no pleading or evidence to show that the divorce between the parties in this case was indeed as customary divorce. No evidence has been led to show the custom prevalent in the communities to which the parties belonged. There is no Court declaration or divorce acknowledging the said divorce as a valid dissolution of marriage. Only a "settlement" took place before a panchayat, which does not amount to divorce. In Vedu vs. Saluchna 2023 PHHC 043183, it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that an agreement between the parties before a panchayat cannot be treated as binding upon the parties. It was held that without sanction of competent Court of law, a compromise with mutual consent cannot be treated as a valid divorce.
Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.10 of 13
Digitally
signed by
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20
15:15:49
+0530
18. In such a scenario, as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, since the deceased had a spouse from a valid marriage living at the time of his marriage with respondent no. 5 that took place in 2002, the marriage between the respondent no. 5 and the deceased is void. In that situation, the respondent no. 5 cannot inherit as a wife of the deceased. Even the subsequent marriage of the respondent no. 4 is void on the basis of the provision quoted above, and she remains a wife of the deceased as per law.
19. Another contention of learned counsel for the respondent no.5 is that as per Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, if the deceased has more than one wife, they jointly get one share. However, this provision cannot be cited to claim a share since the marriage of respondent no. 5 with the deceased is a void marriage and she cannot be entitled to any inheritance in her capacity as a "wife". It has been held in Laxmibai vs. Anasuya AIR 2013 Kar 24 that for a person to be considered a widow, the marriage should be a valid marriage.
20. Perusal of record reveals that the present petition has been filed for grant of the succession certificate for, inter-alia, the family pension due towards the deceased. In this regard, pension is governed by the applicable service Rules and in the present proceed- ings, where such claim is denied, no order can be passed for grant of family pension to the petitioner. In Violet Issaac vs. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 725, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case pertaining to family pension of a deceased Railway employee. It was observed, inter-alia, as under -
"4...... the family pension scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed by the railway administration to provide relief to the Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.11 of 13 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20 15:15:57 +0530 widow and minor children of the deceased employee. Since, the rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased em- ployee during his lifetime for the payment of family pension, he has no title to the same. Therefore, it does not form part of his Estate en- abling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition."
The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in In Re: Lalithambika S. MANU/ KE/0776/2014 was specifically dealing with a question as to whether family pension can be included in the succession certificate. While deciding the same, it was held by the Hon'ble Court that family pension cannot be construed as a debt due to the deceased employee which could be encashed by him during his lifetime. It was observed that since family pension is not claimed through the deceased and is an independent right, it cannot form part of a succession certificate. Therefore, in view of the said legal position, the prayer qua the aspect of family pension stands rejected.
21. Accordingly, in view of the above, after reserving 1/3rd share for the respondent no.4/Ms. Jaswanti Devi, the petitioner/Ms. Anuradha and respondent no. 3/Smt. Rajo are entitled to grant of succession certificate under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 in respect of the following debts and securities of the deceased Sh. Hawa Singh in equal portion i.e. 1/3rd each. The respondent no. 5/Ms. Kavita is not entitled to any share. The details qua which the succession certificate is granted are as follows -
Benefits Amount
Retirement/death gratuity Rs.5,85,192/-
Leave encashment Rs.2,98,200/-
DLIS Rs.60,000/-
GPF Rs. 4,17,392/-
PENSION Rs. 14,200/-
Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.12 of 13
Digitally
signed by
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.20
15:16:05
+0530
UTGEIS Rs.4,437/-
Total Rs. 13,65,221/-
The issuance of the succession certificate is subject to the payment of Court fees as per Article 12 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, along with the furnishing of an indemnity bond with one surety each.
22. The succession certificate shall be considered only as an entitlement of the petitioner/respondent to receive the shares (with interest / dividend, as applicable and also the right to negotiate/transfer the said securities as per law) due towards the deceased as referred above. The concerned official shall be competent to seek compliance of formalities, if any, to be fulfilled for the said purpose.
23. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are solely for limited purposes of the deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an declaration of this Court on the validity of any marriage between any of the parties before this Court.
24. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. On compliance of the above-mentioned terms and conditions, Succession Certificate be issued in terms of this judgment, and file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by Announced in Open (DEV CHAUDHARY) DEV DEV CHAUDHARY Court.
CHAUDHARY Date:
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST) 2025.05.20
15:16:12
This judgment
TIS HAZARI COURTS
+0530
contains 13 signed
pages. DELHI/ 20.05.2025
Succ. Court 2/2020 Anuradha Vs. State & Ors. Page No.13 of 13