Delhi District Court
Sc No. 47/19 vs The State on 4 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF ACJ/CCJ/ARC (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. VISHAL PAHUJA
SC No. 47/19
Sh. Sanjeev Krishana Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Jagdishwar Krishana Sharma
R/o Flat No. 805, CA Apartments, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi - 110063.
...... Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE
(GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
2. Smt. Sadhana Choube
W/o Sh. Anoop Choube
D/o Late Sh. Jagdishwar Krishana Sharma
R/o Flat No. 29, Two Bed Room Flats
Block No. 2, Kachana Phase-II,
Raipur-492001 (Chattisgarh)
...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 23.03.2019
Date of reserving Judgment : 04.11.2019
Date of decision : 04.11.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The present succession petition has been filed under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') by Sh. Sanjeev Krishana Sharma (hereinafter, referred to as 'the petitioner') Son of Late Sh. Jagdishwar Krishana Sharma (hereinafter, referred to as 'the deceased') for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities (elucidated in Schedule-A & B of the petition) in the name of deceased.
SC No. 47/19Sanjeev Krishana Sharma Vs. State Page No. 1 of 5
2. [ The petition was instituted on 23.03.2019. Notice of the petition was issued to the general public by way of publication which was served on 19.04.2019 through 'Dainik Bhaskar'. None from the general public filed any objections.
3. Ms. Sadhana Choube (sibling of petitioner) has filed Affidavit-cum-No Objection qua grant of succession certificate to the petitioner in respect to the debts and securities in the name of the deceased.
4. Statement of Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Deputy Manager Legal, Karvy Fintech Pvt. Ltd., Karvy Selenium Tower B, Plot Nos. 31 & 32, Financial Distt., Hyderabad-500032 was recorded on 30.08.2019 who stated that he was duly authorized by Karvy Fintech Pvt. Ltd. to appear in the court and make statement on behalf of Reliance Industries Ltd. He has bought the details in respect of shares in Reliance Industries Ltd. (earlier known as Reliance Textile Industries Ltd.) vide folio nos. 000504998 (having total 1032 number of shares), folio no. 076004579 (having total 440 number of shares), shares in respect of Reliance Capital Ltd. vide folio nos. 100299984 (5 no. of shares) & folio no. 104427243 (12 no. of shares), shares in respect of Reliance Communication Ventures Ltd. Now known as Reliance Communications Ltd. Vide folio no. 810053 (110 no. of shares) & folio no. 799793 (258 no. of shares) and shares in respect of Reliance Home Finance Ltd. Vide folio no. 1002999 (certificate no. 43841) having 5 no. of shares and folio no. 104427243 (Certificate no. 247276) having 12 no. of shares vide statement Ex. R-1. He has also placed on record copy of his his Identity Card issued by Karvy Fintech Pvt. Ltd for SC No. 47/19 Sanjeev Krishana Sharma Vs. State Page No. 2 of 5 identification vide Ex.R2 (OSR).
5. Statement of PW-1 Sh. Sanjeev Krishana Sharma/the petitioner was recorded today who stated that he is the son of deceased Late Sh. Jagdishwar Krishana Sharma, who expired on 24.12.2001. He further stated that his mother namely Late Smt. Ragini Sharma had already expired on 27.08.2015. He also deposed that deceased Late Sh. Jagdishwar Krishana Sharma has left behind the petitioner and his one daughter Smt, Sadhana Choube as the only surviving Class-I legal heirs. He also stated that there is no other Class-I legal heir except them. He aso stated that deceased Late Sh. Jagdishwar Krishana Sharma had not executed any Will during his life time.
He relied upon the documents :-
1. Ex. PW 1/1 : Death certificate of my father Late Sh. Jagdishwar Krishana Sharma.
2. Ex. PW 1/2 : Death certificate of my mother Late Smt. Ragini Sharma.
3. Ex. PW 1/3 (colly) : Copies of two shares certificate in (OSR) Dena Bank bearing certificate no 01479399 & 01479400.
4. Mark-A(colly) : Photocopy of passbook of Saving bank account maintained with State Bank of India, Jawala Heri Village, Paschim Vihar along with details of locker.
Petitioner closed his evidence today itself.
6. Final arguments were addressed today. I have heard the arguments and perused the material on record carefully.
7. The Succession Certificate Under Section 372 of SC No. 47/19 Sanjeev Krishana Sharma Vs. State Page No. 3 of 5 the Act is issued as law abhors escheat and vacuum. In Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi, AIR 2000 SC 2301, 2000 (3) ALT 35 SC, 2001 (49) BLJR 813, 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".
8. By way of the evidence led, the petitioner has proved his averments and documents relied upon. No impediment Under Section 370 of Act has come to light which restricts the grant of certificate to the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 Smt. Sadhana Choube has filed Affidavit-cum-No Objection qua grant of succession certificate to the petitioner in respect to the debts and securities in the name of the deceased. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to the debts and securities of the deceased persons, as per Ex. R-1, Ex. PW 1/3 (colly) and Mark-A (colly) except bank locker. It is settled proposition of law that succession certificate is issued only qua debts and securities.
SC No. 47/19Sanjeev Krishana Sharma Vs. State Page No. 4 of 5 The succession certificate of the contents of the locker constituting movable property of the deceased cannot be granted. Reference may be made to the decision in Shyam Sundari Devi Vs. Sarti Devi, AIR 1962 Patna 220 also Assam Bengal Railway Company Vs. Atul Chander, AIR 1937 Cal 314 cited with approval in Sharda Vs. SBI 1996 MPLJ 1001. Therefore, succession certificate cannot be granted for locker.
9. The Court accordingly directs that succession certificate be issued in the name of petitioner Sh. Sanjeev Krishana Sharma in respect of debts and securities of the deceased, as per Ex. R-1, Ex. PW 1/3 (colly) and Mark-A (colly) except bank locker.
10. Court fees and indemnity bond with one surety be filed by the petitioner within 15 days.
11. No further order is required to be passed. File be consigned to the Record Room. Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date:
2019.11.04 14:37:00 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA) COURT ON 4th DAY OF ACJ/CCJ/ARC NOVEMBER, 2019 (WEST)/DELHI This Judgment contains Five pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date:
2019.11.04 14:37:06 +0530 (VISHAL PAHUJA) ACJ/CCJ/ARC (WEST)/DELHI SC No. 47/19 Sanjeev Krishana Sharma Vs. State Page No. 5 of 5