Delhi District Court
Km. Sushumna Khosla vs The State & Ors on 29 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP GARG :
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Petition No. : 275/1996
Unique ID No : 02401C0004531996
In the matter of:
Km. Sushumna Khosla, Adopted daughter
of Late Anjana Khosla
R/o. Qtr. No. 78/271, Rama Krishana Marg
Gole Market, New Delhi
(Through her natural father Shri Vikram Parve
R/o. 78/271, Rama Krishna Marg, Gole Market
New Delhi).
....Petitioner.
Versus
The State & Ors.
.....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 08.04.1996
Date of order when reserved : 27.11.2014
Date of order when announced : 29.11.2014
J U D G M E N T :
1. The present succession petition has been filed by the Petitioner viz. Km. Sushumna Khosla for the grant of Succession Petition No. 275/1996 1/18 Certificate in her favour qua the debts and securities left by Ms. Anjana Khosla, who expired on 21.03.1996 at Delhi, claiming that she is adopted daughter of the deceased.
2. After filing of this petition, notice of filing of this petition was given to the general public by way of publication in the newspaper 'National Herald' dated 25.10.1997, but none has appeared from general public to oppose or contest the present petition.
3. Respondents/objectors namely Sh. B.C. Khosla, Sh. Y.C. Khosla and Sh. Subhash Khosla were served by way of publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman' dated 12.02.1998.
4. During the pendency of the petition, one of the respondent/objector Sh. Y.C. Khosla expired on 27.05.2013. An application Under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC was filed on behalf of the LRs of respondent/objector Sh. Y.C. Khosla. Vide order dated 20.10.2014, the application was allowed and LRs of Sh. Y.C. Khosla were impleaded as respondents/objectors.
Petition No. 275/1996 2/18
5. A reply has been filed by respondents/objectors no. 2 and 3, Sh. B.C. Khosla and Sh. Y.C. Khosla wherein it was averred that the deceased had executed a duly registered Will dated 10.05.1996 with the office Sub Registrar, Delhi. Respondent/objector no. 3 Sh. Y.C. Khosla had been appointed as an executor of the said Will. The deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla had nominated Sh. Y.C. Khosla and Subhash Khosla viz. Respondents no. 3 and 4 in her General Provident Fund (GPF) and respondent no. 4 was nominated in insurance policy. The FDRs, post office and other accounts were to be kept in the joint name of respondents no.3 & 4, but were to be utilized only for the benefit of respondent no. 4. The deceased nominated respondents no. 3 and 4 even in her school records.
6. Since, respondent no. 4 had died on 28.05.1998 unmarried and all the properties now devolved upon respondents/objectors no. 2 and 3. The deceased never adopted the petitioner and the alleged Adoption Deed dated 15.02.1996 is forged, fabricated and manipulated document. The deceased was mentally and physically ill and was unable to recognize even her brothers during the last 34 months of her death. Prior to 1993, the deceased was residing in her house bearing Petition No. 275/1996 3/18 no. E2/129, Shastri Nagar, Delhi with her younger brother, Subhash Khosla, respondent no. 4. In mid of year 1993, she left that house and purchased property bearing no. E2/129, Shastri Nagar, Delhi where she resided with her brother/respondent no. 4 till the last day of her death.
7. The respondent no. 4 always used to live with the deceased as he was unmarried and youngest in the family. There was no reason and occasion for taking the petitioner in adoption in JanuaryFebruary, 1996 when she was not physically and mentally fit even to look after herself. The alleged adoption never took place nor even the alleged ceremony of Datta Homan was ever performed on 24.01.1996. The petitioner is silent as to who attended the alleged ceremony from the side of the deceased. The mental condition of the deceased on the date of registration of Adoption Deed i.e. 15.02.1996 is evident from the fact that she even could not remember the name of her father as her name of father was typed as Om Parkash Khosla and later cutting has been made without obtaining initials of the deceased. The father of the petitioner namely Sh. Vikram Parve has only one daughter i.e. the petitioner.
Petition No. 275/1996 4/18
8. Petitioner filed her replication/rejoinder denying all the averments made by the respondents/objectors no. 2 and 3, Sh. B.C. Khosla and Sh. Y.C Khosla. It is averred that in the year 1980, the deceased Ms. Anjana Khosla was not on good terms with the respondents/objectors as the respondents/objectors no. 2 and 3 always harassed, maltreated and misbehaved with her. The deceased had lodged several complaints to the police against the cruel acts committed by the respondents no. 3 and 4. The deceased lodged complaints against respondents and respondent no. 4 namely Subhash Khosla was arrested under sections 107/151 of Cr.P.C. . The deceased had always been living separately till her death.
9. Respondents/objectors no. 2 and 3 filed their rejoinder denying all the averments made by the petitioner.
10. PW1 Sh. Vikram Parve, who is stated to be the biological father of the petitioner deposed that Smt. Kaushalya Parve is the biological mother of the petitioner. On 15.02.1996, he and his wife Smt. Kaushalya Parve had given their daughter to Ms. Anjana Khosla Petition No. 275/1996 5/18 in adoption and adoption ceremony was performed on 24.01.1996 in presence of near relatives, friends, neighbours etc. The religious adoption ceremony was performed in presence of the near friends and relatives. The adoption Deed is Ex. DW3/P2. Other witnesses namely Sh. I.K. Kapoor, Sh. Kailash Nath Aggarwal, Sh. J.P. Narayan had accompanied him, his wife, Km. Sushumna alongwith Ms. Anjana Khosla. All have affixed their photographs on the Adoption Deed at points P1 to P4 and signed at P6 to P11. All the witnesses went to the office of SubRegistrar, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi and the Registrar enquired about the fact of adoption and mental health of Ms. Anjana Khosla.
11. After satisfying about fulfillment of the requirements, the adoption deed was registered. After registration of adoption deed, the surname of the petitioner was changed from Sushumna Parve to Sushumna Khosla. The deceased was working as Senior Teacher in Government School, Paharganj, New Delhi. She died on 21.03.1996 at Delhi. The relations between Ms. Anjana Khosla and her brothers were not good/cordial and she had lodged a police report dated 03.05.1983. Ms. Anjana Khosla had not executed any Will in favour Petition No. 275/1996 6/18 of her brothers, Sh. Subhash Khosla and Sh. Y.C. Khosla on 10.05.1995 or on any other date.
13. During his cross examination, PW1 has stated that he knew deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla since 1985. He admitted that the quarter in which he was residing, was allotted in the name of deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla and he was allowed to reside therein. The deceased was residing alongwith her brother, Sh. Subhash Khosla at Deputy Ganj. Ms. Anjana Khosla had shifted alongwith her brother, Sh. Subhash Khosla from Deputy Ganj to Shastri Nagar. He does not know as to whether deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla was suffering from breast cancer. He was also not aware that deceased was under breast cancer treatment from 1992 to 1996.
14. He does not know as to what was the cause of death of deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla. He does not know if deceased was operated in RML Hospital on 25.01.1993 and she was got treated by her brother Sh. Y.K. Khosla. He does not know as to whether deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla was treated with the help of her brother or not. He does not know whether one eye of the deceased was Petition No. 275/1996 7/18 affected due to breast cancer. He denied the suggestion that Ms. Anjana Khosla was unable to see, recognize and was not in a sound disposing state of mind since January 1996 till her death in March, 1996. The ceremony of adoption was performed on 24.01.1996 at 12 Noon.
15. Some friends of deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla were present on the adoption ceremony, but he does not know the names of those friends. He denied the suggestion that no adoption ceremony was performed on 24.01.1996. He admitted that the witnesses Sh. I.K. Kapoor, Sh. Kailash Nath Aggarwal and Sh. J.P. Naryan are his friends. He had gone to the office of SubRegistrar, Asaf Ali Road at 3 PM. He denied the suggestion that the deceased had bequeathed her movable and immovable properties to her brothers vide registered Will dated 10.05.1995.
16. Petitioner herself deposed as PW2 and stated that her exact date of birth is 26.03.1982. She had been adopted by the deceased on 15.02.1996 vide Registered Adoption Deed dated 15.02.1996 before the SubRegistrar, Asaf Ali Road. Thereafter, she has been known as Petition No. 275/1996 8/18 Ms. Sushumna Khosla daughter of Ms. Anjana Khosla. She was minor at the time of adoption. She has been brought up by the deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla. At the time of registration of adoption deed, the deceased, her natural parents including all the witnesses appeared before the Office of Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road and at the time of adoption, her adoptive mother was in sound state of mind and health.
17. The deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla was a Government employee as Senior Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Paharganj, New Delhi. She died on 21.03.1996 at Delhi. The deceased was also having LIC policy bearing no. 50328574 of Rs. 50,000/ which matured on 20.05.1999. The deceased also having a savings bank account bearing no. 6410 with SBI, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and Rs.5,283.05p was lying deposited in her account. The deceased had not executed any Will in favour of Y.C. Khosla or Subhash Khosla on 10.05.1995 or on any other date.
18. Respondents namely Sh. Subhash Khosla and Sh. Y.C. Khosla have been misbehaving with the deceased on different occasions and sometimes she was beaten by Sh. Subhash Khosla. The Petition No. 275/1996 9/18 deceased had lodged a police report dated 03.05.1983 which is already on record and vide DD no. 26A dated 20.10.1995, a Kalandra U/s. 107/111 Cr.P.C. was lodged on the complaint made by the deceased against Sh. Subhash Khosla at Police Station, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
19. During her cross examination, PW2 stated that she is graduate and married. In the year 1996, she was studying in VIIIth standard in Lady Ervin School, Canning Road, near India Gate. The adoption ceremony was performed on 24.01.1996. On 24.01.1996, her father was performing night shift and he was at home at the time of adoption ceremony. She knows Sh. I.K. Kapoor, Sh. Kailash Nath Aggarwal and Dr. J.P. Narayan and she had seen them signing and she can identify their signatures. Sh. I.K. Kapoor and Sh. Kailash Nath Aggarwal had signed before she signed on Ex. DW3/P2. The deceased was suffering from breast cancer. Deceased was under
medication for her treatment of breast cancer till her death. She does not know as to whether deceased was operated upon on 25.01.1993 or not.
20. PW3 Sh. Vinod Kumar, Record Clerk from Office of Sub Petition No. 275/1996 10/18 RegistrarIII, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi proved adoption deed dated 15.02.1996 executed between Sh. Vikram Parve S/o. Sh. Jagat Ram Parve and Mrs. Kaushalya Parve W/o. Sh. Vikram Parve, the giver and Ms. Anjana Khosla D/o. Sh. Om Parkash Khosla, recipient, vide Regd. no. 972, Addl. BookIII, Volume No. 911, pages 83 to 86 dated 15.02.1996, Ex. PW3/1. During his cross examination, he stated that the cutting of the name of Om Prakash on page no. 1 and 2 on Ex. DW3/P2 is not there in their office record.
21. On the other hand, in order to substantiate their case, respondents examined three witnesses. OW1 Sh. S.P. Dagar, record clerk from Office of Sub Registrar, Janak Puri, Delhi deposed that the document registered at Serial no. 51 in the volume is missing. Document no. 25875 is not available in this volume. Documents registration no. 25874 and 25876 are available in the volume, but document no. 25875 is missing. The Will, Ex. OW1/A is a certified copy issued by the SubRegistrar office, Janakpuri on 27.07.1999. During cross examination, he stated that he has not verified from the office as to whether any document bearing no. 25875 is registered in office or is missing. The office keeps a separate record of the issuance Petition No. 275/1996 11/18 of certified copies of documents and he has not brought that record. He denied that the Will, Ex. OW1/A was not registered.
22. OW2 Sh. Murli Dhar deposed that the deceased was the sister of the objectors. He knew her. She had executed a Will dated 10.05.1995 in favour of Sh. Subhash Khosla and Sh. Y.C. Khosla. He had signed on the Will as an attesting witness. Besides him, one Sh. A.K. Sharma had also signed on the Will as an attesting witness. The Will was typed on the instructions of Ms. Anjana Khosla. The Will was signed by the deceased and thereafter, he and Sh. A.K. Sharma signed on the Will. He identified the signatures of the deceased and Sh. A.K. Sharma at points A and B and his own signatures at point C, on the original Will. Ex. OW1/A is the certified copy of the original Will. The deceased signed on the Will after reading and understanding it. She was not under any influence or pressure at the time of execution of Will and was in a fit state of mind.
23. During crossexamination, OW2 stated that he knew Sh. Subhash Khosla, who was the brother of Ms. Anjana Khosla. Both of them used to reside together at Deputy Ganj. The Will was typed in Petition No. 275/1996 12/18 his presence at Janakpuri SubRegistrar Office. Sh. Y.C. Khosla and Sh. Subhash Khosla were also present at the time of execution of Will. Firstly, the Will was signed by Ms. Anjana Khosla. She did not put her thumb impression in his presence. He signed the Will after it was signed by Ms. Anjana Khosla and thereafter, Sh. A.K. Sharma also signed the Will. Objectors, Sh. Subhash Khosla and Sh. Y.C. Khosla were his customers.
24. OW3 Sh. Y.C. Khosla deposed that Ms. Anjana Khosla was his sister. She was unmarried. During her lifetime, she executed a Will dated 10.05.1995 and got the same registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Janak Puri, New Delhi which is already Ex. OW1/A. As per her Will, she bequeathed all her movable and immovable properties including the amount lying in the shape of FDR in the banks, LIC policies, PPF account and Gratuity in his favour and in favour of her other brother namely Sh. Subhash Khosla, who expired on 28.05.1998. At the time of demise of Sh. Subhash Khosla, he was unmarried. Therefore, his share and properties also devolved upon the other objectors by operation of law.
Petition No. 275/1996 13/18
25. The deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla appointed him as an executor of the Will dated 10.05.1995. The deceased remained unmarried throughout her life. During her life time, she never adopted the petitioner as her daughter. The deceased has left behind three brothers viz. himself, Sh. B.C. Khosla and Sh. Subhash Khosla. As per her Will, two brothers namely Sh. Y.C. Khosla and Subhash Khosla (since expired) were entitled to inherit the entire estate left over by her. However, after the demise of Sh. Subhash Khosla, his share of property has devolved upon him and Sh. B.C. Khosla. Ms. Anjana Khosla lived with Sh. Subhash Khosla till mid year, 1993 and both of them had shifted to Chuna Mandi, Paharganj on 21.03.1996.
26. During crossexamination, OW3 stated that he knew Sh. Murli Dhar through his brother, Sh. Subhash Khosla since 1997. Sh. Murli Dhar was doing the business of tailoring and his brother was doing the business of export of garments. His brother used to place orders for stitching of cloths with Sh. Murli Dhar. He admitted that the Will, Ex. OW1/A was neither typed, nor dictated in his presence. When he reached, Ms. Anjana Khosla had already dictated Will to the typist and she was about to go inside office of SubRegistrar. He Petition No. 275/1996 14/18 remained in the office of SubRegistrar for about two and a half hours. He denied that the Will, Ex. OW1/A is forged and manipulated document.
27. OW3 admitted that there is no date of execution of the Will on Ex. OW1/A. He has brought the original laminated Will which is exhibited as OW3/P1 and in the original Will dated 10.05.1995, the date of execution of Will is mentioned, which is written in hand. He admitted that the photograph on the extreme right top of the page of Ex. OW3/P2 (adoption deed) is that of Ms. Anjana Khosla. He also identified the photograph of Sh. Vikram Parve on adoption deed, Ex. OW3/P2. However, he cannot recognize the other two photographs on the adoption deed. He denied that the petitioner became absolute owner of all movable and immovable properties of the deceased after her death. He denied that adoption ceremony was performed at the time of adoption of the petitioner.
28. The court has perused written submissions filed by both the parties and perused the record.
Petition No. 275/1996 15/18
29. It is well settled proposition of law 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 the applicant 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 other questions of law and fact which may be complicated are to be decided in regular civil court.
In the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and others Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and others AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2301=2000 AIR SCW 2432 it was held that "sub sec. (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 Petition No. 275/1996 16/18 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. The court is of the considered view that the objectors have been successful in establishing that the deceased, Ms. Anjana Khosla had executed Will dated 10.05.1995, Ex. OW3/P1. The certified copy of this Will is also Ex. OW1/A. Even if the date 10th May has been inserted in the Will later on, it does not have any bearing on the genuineness of this Will. The date of execution of the Will is also mentioned at various places on the rear side of the Will where endorsements have been made by the office of SubRegistrarII, Delhi. As per the Will, the deceased had bequeathed her dues of school to her brothers viz. Sh. Y.C. Khosla and Sh. Subhash Khosla. She bequeathed the dues in respect of insurance policy, immovable properties, fixed deposits, bank accounts, post office accounts and other amounts exclusively to her brother, Sh. Subhash Khosla. Petition No. 275/1996 17/18
31. The petitioner has failed to establish that the deceased had revoked the registered Will dated 10.05.1995, Ex. OW3/P1 or the said Will is invalid. Even if the petitioner was later on adopted vide adoption deed dated 15.02.1996, the same does not ipso facto have the effect of the petitioner becoming beneficiary of the properties of the deceased. Therefore, the court holds that the brothers of the deceased are entitled to succeed the properties of the deceased as per her registered Will dated 10.05.1995, Ex. OW3/P1. The petitioner is not entitled to succeed the estate/properties of the deceased in view of the aforementioned Will. The petition is devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SANDEEP GARG)
on 29.11.2014 Administrative Civil JudgeCum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi
Petition No. 275/1996 18/18
275/1996
29.11.2014
Present : None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed the estate/properties of the deceased in view of the registered Will dated 10.05.1995, Ex. OW3/P1. The petition is devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sandeep Garg) ACJ/ARC (Central) Delhi/29.11.2014 Petition No. 275/1996 19/18