Delhi District Court
Vimla Devi vs State on 7 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided Over By: Sh. Bharat Aggarwal
Petition No. : Succ. Court 54/2025
CNR No. : DLCT03-002898-2025
Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Vimla Devi
w/o Late Shri Subodh Jain @ Subodh Kothari
r/o G-31, Top Floor, Radhey Puri,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051.
Also at:
1280, Vaidwara, Maliwara,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi- 110006.
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State
Through SDM-Karol Bagh
Flatted Factory Complex
Jhandewalan
2. Godfrey Phillips India Ltd.
CIN: L16004MH1936PLC008587,000
Through Managing Director
Registered Office at:
Macropolo Building,
SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 1 of 13
Digitally
signed by
BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07
16:40:00
+0530
Dr. Ambedkar Road, Mumbai - 400 033,
Maharashtra.
3. Sandip Kumar
s/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Kothari
r/o 1280, Vaidwara, Maliwara,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
4. Divya Kothari
d/o Late Subodh Jain @ Subhod Kothari
w/o Mohit Golecha
r/o Plot no.146, Door no.41,
6th Cross Street, Vyasarpadi,
MKB Nagar, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu-600039.
...RESPONDENTS
Date of institution : 09.05.2025
Date of judgment : 07.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present succession petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in respect of debts and securities of the deceased Late Sh. B L Kothari @ Bhanwar Lal Kothari s/o Late Sh. Shekhar Chand Kothari (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') who is stated to be the father in law of petitioner, father of respondent no. 3 and paternal grandfather of respondent no.4.
2. It is averred in the petition that the deceased died SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 2 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:09 +0530 intestate on 14.11.1991 at Delhi. It is further stated that the deceased was an ordinary resident of 1280, Vaidwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is further stated that the deceased is survived by three legal heirs i.e. the petitioner, being his daughter in law, respondent no.3, being his son and respondent no. 4 being his grand daughter.
3. It is averred that the deceased has left behind certain shares as mentioned in Annexure-A of the present petition. In the petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of succession certificate in respect of aforesaid shares as mentioned in Annexure-A lying in the name of the deceased as the deceased is stated to have died intestate.
4. State has been impleaded as respondent no.1 in the present petition.
5. After filing of this petition, notice was given to the general public by way of publication in the newspaper "The Statesman" dated 08.06.2025 but none appeared from general public to oppose or contest the present petition.
6. During summary enquiry, six witnesses were examined.
7. Petitioner took the witness stand as PW-1. PW-1 deposed that the deceased Mr. B.L. Kothari @ Bhanwar Lal Kothari was her father-in-law who expired on 14.11.1991 at Delhi and she relied upon his death certificate as Ex. PW-1/1 (OS&R). PW-1 further SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. 3 of 13 Page No.Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:13 +0530 deposed that besides her, the deceased has left behind one son and one grand daughter, who are respondents no.3 and 4 in the present petition. PW-1 also deposed that the deceased also had one more son namely Mr. Subodh Jain i.e., her husband, who expired on 26.09.2024 leaving behind his two legal heirs i.e. herself being his widow and one daughter Ms. Divya Kothari/respondent no.4. PW-1 relied upon the death certificate of Mr. Subodh Jain as Ex. PW-1/2.
PW-1 further deposed that respondents no.3 and 4 have given their no objection for grant of succession certificate in her favour qua their shares in the debts and securities of the deceased. PW-1 also deposed that the wife of the deceased namely Ms. Anter Devi passed away on 05.07.2016 and she relied upon her death certificate as Ex.PW-1/3 (OS&R). PW-1 also deposed that the mother of the deceased Smt. Jadau Devi predeceased the deceased since long back even before her marriage, however despite her best efforts, she could not trace out any details regarding her death. PW-1 also deposed that the deceased has left behind certain debts and securities as mentioned in Annexure-A of the present petition. PW-1 relied upon the Surviving Member Certificate of the deceased as already exhibited as Ex.RW-5/2 and Surviving Member Certificate of Mr. Subodh Jain as Ex.PW-1/4.
8. RW-1, Mr. Satpal Singh, Baliff, SDM, Kotwali, did not brought the summoned record i.e., Surviving Member Certificate of the deceased in the present matter since the same has not been applied for by the legal heirs of the deceased in their office.
SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 4 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:17 +0530
9. Respondent no.3 and 4 were examined and discharged as RW-2 and RW-3 respectively. They deposed that they have no objection for grant of succession certificate in favour of petitioner qua their shares in the debts and securities of the deceased.
10. RW-4, Mr. Ghanshyam, Senior Supervisor, Godfrey Phillips India Ltd., registered office at Macropolo Building, Ground floor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400033, brought the summoned record with respect to 1500 shares of Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. under Folio No. K00286 having total tentative market value of Rs. 46,84,500/- as on 28.10.2025. RW-4 deposed that the aforesaid folio number is lying under the name of Mr. Bhanwar Lal Kothari. RW-4 relied upon the aforesaid certified record as Ex.RW-4/2.
11. RW-5, Mr. Ashish, Patwari, SDM Office, Raja Garden, Delhi, brought the summoned record i.e. Surviving Member Certificate of the deceased Mr. B.L. Kothari on which he relied upon as Ex.RW-5/2.
12. The Court has heard submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and has perused the record.
13. Before proceeding further, the law pertaining to grant of succession certificate may be discussed for better understanding of the concept. It is trite that merely by grant of succession certificate, SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 5 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:20 +0530 the holder does not become the owner of the estate of the deceased. In this regard, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.K. Prahalada and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. [MANU/SC/7618/2008, (2008) 15 SCC 577] are relevant to be noted, which are as follows:
"A succession certificate is granted for a limited purpose. A Court granting a succession certificate does not decide the question of title. A nominee or holder of succession certificate has a duty to hand over the property to the person who has a legal title thereto. By obtaining a succession certificate alone, a person does not become the owner of the property."
14. It is also well settled that the holder of the certificate has a bounden duty to release the debt and securities of the deceased to the rightful claimant under the applicable law. Certain observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Atul Maithel vs. State Bank of India and Ors. [MANU/DE/3548/2017] are set out below:-
"14. As far as the only other contention is concerned, the Court granting the Succession Certificate only issues the certificate to declare to the public at large, of the grantee thereof being entitled, under orders of the Court, to collect the debts and securities of the deceased and to give due discharge therefor. However, if any person holding such debts and securities refuses to return the same to the grantee or disputes debts and securities, the grantee will have to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery thereof and the proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate are by no stretch of imagination, proceedings for SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 6 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:24 +0530 recovery or for mandatory injunction.
15. Furthermore, the order granting issuance of the succession certificate does not become executable as decree of the court. It only allows the grantee to receive the debts thereby discharging the debtor of the deceased relieving him from the multiple claims made for such a debt. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this regard has further held in Sushila Devi Vs. State and Ors. [MANU/DE/3075/2017] that no execution proceedings lie against the debtor of the order passed under such proceedings and holder has to establish his claim independently in a civil suit. The findings of the court were as follows:-
"6. The counsel for the petitioner appears to be under a misconception of law that an order of issuance of Succession Certificate or a Succession Certificate is executable decree against the persons holding the debts and securities of the deceased.
7. A Succession Certificate only entitles the grantee thereof to claim and receive the debts and securities of the deceased, giving a full discharge to the persons who may be holding the said debts and securities, so as to relieve them from claim by multiple persons claiming to be the heirs of the deceased. Before granting such Succession Certificate, in a proceeding for grant of Succession Certificate which in any case is summary in nature, the persons holding debts and securities are not required to be impleaded and a perusal of the order dated 14th November, 2014 ordering issuance of Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner also does not show Axis SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 7 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2026.05.07 16:40:28 +0530 Bank, Khan Market, New Delhi and New India Insurance Co. Ltd. claimed to be holding the said debts and securities of the deceased to be parties thereto. Merely because an applicant for Succession Certificate has averred in the petition that the debts and securities mentioned in the application are due to the deceased, is no proof of the said debts and securities being due to the deceased and a proceeding for grant of Succession Certificate is not meant for adjudication of the said issues. If the persons who are claimed to be holding the debts and securities of the deceased dispute the claim, the entitlement in law of the grantee of the Succession Certificate is only to make a legal claim against them and not to execute the Succession Certificate or an order granting Succession Certificate.
9. I find the Supreme Court in Banarsi Dass Vs. Teeku Dutta MANU/SC/0333/2005 : (2005) 4 SCC 449 to have held (i) that the main object of a Succession Certificate is to facilitate collection of debts on succession and afford protection to parties paying debts to representatives of the deceased person; (ii) all that the Succession Certificate purports to do is to facilitate the collection of debts, to regulate the administration of succession and to protect persons who deal with the alleged representatives of the deceased persons; (iii) such a Certificate does not give any general power of administration on the estate of the deceased; (iv) the grant of a certificate does not establish title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased; (v) a Succession Certificate is intended to protect the debtors, which means that where a debtor of a deceased person either voluntarily pays his debt to a person holding a certificate or is compelled by a decree of the Court to pay it to the person, he is lawfully discharged; and, (vi) the grant of a certificate does not establish a title of SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 8 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:34 +0530 the grantee as the heir of the deceased, but only furnishes him with authority to collect his debts and allows the debtors to make payments to him without incurring any risk."
16. 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 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 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 debts. The grant of a certificate to a person does not give him an absolute right to the debts nor does it bar a regular suit for adjustment of the claims of the heir inter se".
17. Thus, to sum up, it can be inferred that the succession certificate ensures that process of release of debt of the deceased is streamlined and the debtor is provided security against numerous SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 9 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:38 +0530 claims. The aim of such certificate is that it acts as conclusive proof for discharge of money against the debtor. The court granting the certificate is not required to determine the question of title and the Court by its order granting the certificate merely authorises one to collect the debts or securities of the deceased who then acts as a trustee to distribute the amount to the legal heirs of the deceased. Even though the proceedings for issuance of succession certificate are summary in nature yet, in terms of Rule 3(d) of Part B- Chapter 6- Volume II of the Delhi High Court Rules, the court can take sufficient evidence to enable it to form an opinion as to who is best entitled to the certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased.
18. Facts of the case shall be analyzed through the prism of legal position enunciated above.
19. From the uncontroverted testimony of PW-1, it stands established that the deceased died intestate on 14.11.1991 at Delhi. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inter-alia provides that when a hindu male dies intestate, his property shall first devolve upon the Class-I legal heirs specified in the Schedule of the Act. PW-1 specifically deposed that mother of the deceased Smt. Jadau Devi predeceased the deceased long back before her marriage and wife of the deceased also expired on 05.07.2016. PW-1 further deposed that deceased has left behind one son and one grand daughter who are respondents no. 3 and 4 respectively. PW-1 also deposed that the deceased had one more son namely Mr. Subodh Jain who expired on 26.09.2024 leaving behind his two legal heirs SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 10 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:42 +0530 i.e., his widow (petitioner) and one daughter (respondent no.4) and there is no reason to disbelieve the same as the said facts have remained uncontroverted throughout the proceedings and are also supported by death certificate of Mr. Subodh Jain i.e., Ex.PW-1/2, death certificate of wife of the deceased Ex.PW-1/3 and Surviving Member Certificate of the deceased and Mr. Subodh Jain i.e., Ex.RW-5/2 and Ex.PW-1/4 respectively. Accordingly, upon the death of the deceased, his property devolved upon his wife and his children i.e., Mr. Subodh Jain and respondent no. 3, equally and simultaneously.
20. Further, upon the death of wife of the deceased namely Smt. Anter Devi on 05.07.2016, in terms of Section 15 (1) (a) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her property notionally devolved upon her children, i.e., Mr. Subodh Jain, and respondent no.4. Upon the death of Mr. Subodh Jain (son of the deceased) on 26.09.2024 his property devolved upon his class I legal heirs i.e., petitioner, being his widow and respondent no.4 being his daughter equally and simultaneously.
21. However, respondents no. 3 and 4 have given their no objection for grant of succession certificate in favour of petitioner qua their shares in the debts and securities of the deceased. Accordingly, petitioner shall be entitled to grant for succession certificate in the debts and securities of the deceased. As per the death certificate of the deceased, he used to reside at 1280, Vaidwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, which falls within the SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 11 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:45 +0530 territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
22. Succession certificate is sought qua following debts and securities of the deceased :-
1500 shares of Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. under Folio No. K00286 having total tentative market value of Rs. 46,84,500/- as on 28.10.2025 maintained with Godfrey Phillips India Ltd., registered office at Macropolo Building, Ground floor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400033.
Total value of securities held by deceased turns out to be Rs.46,84,500/-.
23. In view of the evidence adduced on record which has remained unrebutted and uncontroverted, the Court is of the considered opinion that there is prima-facie no impediment for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of petitioner in the debts and securities of the deceased in terms of Ex.RW-4/2 having total amount of Rs.46,84,500/-. Succession Certificate is granted accordingly in favour of petitioner.
Succession certificate be drawn on deposit of requisite court fees of Rs.1,17,112.5/- (i.e. rounded off to Rs.1,17,113/-) in terms of Article 12 of Schedule I of Court Fees Act, 1870, as applicable in Delhi and on furnishing an Indemnity Bond and Surety Bond with one surety within 30 days from today.
SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 12 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:50 +0530 Petition is accordingly disposed off. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:40:56 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal) Today i.e. 07.05.2026 ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi Present judgment consists of 13 pages and each page bears my initials.Digitally signed by BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.05.07 16:41:00 +0530 (Bharat Aggarwal) ACJ-cum-ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts 07.05.2026 (A) SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 13 of 13