Delhi District Court
Koyel Mathur vs . State on 3 June, 2016
Koyel Mathur vs. State
In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District, Saket Courts
Complex, Room No. 602, 6th Floor, New Delhi
In the matter of :
GP No. 01/2016
Unique No. 02406C0057182016
Date of filing : 10.02.2016
Date of institution : 11.02.2016
Decision reserved on: 02.05.2016
Date of decision : 03.06.2016
Mrs. Koyel Mathur, W/o Late Praveen Mathur,
R/o Block X, No. 23, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi110016.
... Petitioner
Versus
State.
... Respondent
JUDGMENT
[on petition under section 9 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 r/w Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act] 1.1 (Introduction) - The petitioner Mrs. Koyel Mathur is seeking permission to appoint her as guardian of minor Baby Veronica Mathur in respect of her share in the property left by her father Shri Praveen Mathur, since there are circumstances arisen for filing the petition. GP No. 01/2016 Page 1 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State 1.2 The petitioner Ms. Koyel Mathur got married to Shri Praveen Mathur on 11.03.2001 and out of this wedlock, Baby Veronica Mathur was born on 06.06.2002 (her birth certificate is now Ex. PW1/2), she is aged about 14 years and student of 8th Class in Delhi Public School, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (her school identity card is Now Ex. PW1/3).
1.3 Petitioner's husband Shri Praveen Mathur and his mother Smt. Urmila Mathur jointly purchased front side ground floor portion of property bearing No. 23, Block X, Hauz Khas, New Delhi16 along with proportionate undivided, indivisible, impartial ownership right in the plot of land measuring 500 sq. yards, underneath building together with rights to use common areas and facilities in the building vide sale deed registered on 01.07.2003 as Document No. 5232, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 3423, pages 2131 (now Ex. PW1/4) from Ms. Neena Bhasin through her Attorneys Mr. Ifran Sheikh and Mr. Farhan Sheikh, the said property has been mutated in their joint names of Shri Praveen Mathur and Smt. Urmila Mathur vide letter dated 09.08.2005 (now Ex. PW1/5) by Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Smt. Urmila Mathur died intestate on 26.06.2010 (her GP No. 01/2016 Page 2 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State husband Shri K.S. Mathur, predeceased her on 01.02.2009) leaving behind ClassI legal heirs, namely Shri Praveen Mathur (son) and Smt. Anuradha Khanna (daughter). Consequently, Shri Praveen Mathur and Smt. Anuradha Khanna inherited jointly one half undivided share of deceased Smt. Urmila Mathur in the property. Smt. Anuradha Khanna relinquished / released her rights, title and interest in the said property in favour of her brother Shri Praveen Mathur by registered relinquishment deed dated 23.04.2014, registered as Document No. 2175, Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. No. 633, pages 133136 (now Ex. PW1/6), consequently, Shri Praveen Mathur became the sole and absolute owner of the property bearing No. 23, Block X, Hauz Khas, New Delhi16 along with proportionate undivided, indivisible, impartial ownership right in the plot of land measuring 500 sq. yards, underneath building together with rights to use common areas and facilities in the building (hereinafter referred as the suit property or estate) and he also got it mutated in his name in the record of Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
1.4 Shri Praveen Mathur also died intestate on 18.06.2015 (his death certificate is now Ex. PW1/7), leaving behind him his ClassI legal heirs - wife/petitioner Ms. Koyel Mathur and ward/minor daughter Baby GP No. 01/2016 Page 3 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State Veronica Mathur. The ward is under care, custody and control of petitioner after the death of Shri Praveen Mathur, the petitioner being natural mother is bringing up and maintaining the minor, she has also great love and affection for her daughter and also very much concerned for her future and education. However, she has no source of income and being alone, she is maintaining her aforesaid minor daughter and bringing her up with great difficulty and hardships, whereas a lot of amount is required for her education and maintenance of minor daughter and to bring her up in healthy atmosphere. Moreover, there is no one else to help or support the petitioner and minor, except petitioner's sister inlaw Mrs. Anuradha Khanna, who settled and living in London, UK, she has also great love and affection and sympathy for the minor and the petitioner as well. She is very keen and desirous that the minor should come, live and study in UK for her better future. The petitioner and minor are planning to go UK for better education and future of minor. Thus, petitioner need funds for aforesaid purposes, as she has no source or recourse, except to sell the estate.
2. Petitioner and her daughter required a small accommodation in Delhi, India and to live therein. To retain the estate, GP No. 01/2016 Page 4 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State which is quite big for them and to maintain it is also a costly affair. The petitioner wants to purchase a small property of lesser value in joint names of petitioner and minor, after selling the estate, since the petitioner and minor are having equal share of each in the estate. It could fetch around Rs. 2 crores and they can buy a small accommodation between Rs. 1.20 crores to Rs. 1.35 crores. In this way, they may save some money for their future and also for welfare and benefit of minor vis avis the share of minor will be deposited in a Nationalized Bank by way of FDR and interest accrued thereon will also be used for the maintenance, education, benefit and welfare of minor, the petitioner undertakes to comply the same. That is why, the petition for permission to sell 50% undivided share of minor in the estate and the proceeds thereof, to be used for benefit and welfare of minor. There is no legal impediment. This Court has jurisdiction.
3.1 The citation to the petition was issued and published in the Statesman dated 03.03.2016, besides in the Court Complex Saket on 01.03.2016 and also published in the Office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hauz Khas however, no one from the general public came to participate in the proceedings.
GP No. 01/2016 Page 5 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State 3.2 Since no one came forward either from the general public, consequently, it was treated as noncontentious matter and the petitioner was asked to lead evidence.
4. (Evidence) - In order to establish the petition, petitioner Ms. Koyel Mathur came into witness box as PW1, she deposed on the lines of petition, inclusive of her identity proof (Ex. PW1/1 of Aadhar Card), besides other documents already referred in the aforementioned paragraphs. Then petitioner's evidence was closed.
5. (Final submissions) - At the stage of final hearing, petitioner's Counsel Shri R.K. Sachdeva, Advocate made final submissions, based on pleading and evidence that the circumstances are self explanatory as to how the need has arisen for the petitioner to file petition for permission to sell the undivided half share of minor in the estate; the sale is being proposed, as it is for the welfare of minor, who is ClassI legal heir of deceased and petitioner is also natural mother of minor. She has no adverse interest towards the ward, besides there is no opposition to the petition from any other quarter. The petitioner relies upon Jagjeet Kaur vs. State 2014 (208) DLT 474, wherein appellant/petitioner was granted GP No. 01/2016 Page 6 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State permission to sell share of the minors located in back portion of the first floor of the property, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Further, in Daya Narain Khatri & Ors. vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta & Anr. 1999 (1) RAJ 476 (Del), it was held that letters of administration is not required in relation to any part of a property of a Hindu, who has died intestate, in terms of Section 212(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It is concluded that the undertaking given by petitioner in her petition and evidence will be complied, for the benefit and welfare of minor.
FINDINGS : 6.1 The contentions of counsel for petitioner are assessed in the light of evidence on record and of statutory provisions of laws, also of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The petitioner has led all documentary record in evidence in respect of status of parties, estate of deceased, besides the shares of petitioner and of minor in the said property, being legal heirs of deceased Shri Praveen Mathur, who died intestate. There is no opposition to the petition and these facts. 6.2 The testimony of petitioner remained unchallenged and un GP No. 01/2016 Page 7 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State rebutted, nothing is appearing to infer that the petitioner (being natural mother of minor) has adverse interest towards the minor and the petition is under beneficial social legislation. On the one side, there is immovable property/estate of the deceased and on the other side, the petitioner lacks resources or source of income to perform obligations of bringing up the minor. The petitioner has equally half undivided share in the suit property. There is nothing on record which my infer that she has adverse interest against the minor/ward. Moreover, she is competent to perform legal obligations and petitioner seeks her appointment for her to deal with minor's share in the property and to dispose off the same. This request of petitioner is within the parameter of law.
6.3 Therefore, petitioner Ms. Koyel Mathur being natural mother and natural guardian of minor, is appointed and permitted to deal/dispose off/sell the half undivided share of the minor/ward in the property bearing No. 23, Block X, Hauz Khas, New Delhi16 along with proportionate undivided, indivisible, impartial ownership right in the plot of land measuring 500 sq. yards, underneath building together with rights to use common areas and facilities in the building and sale transaction will be carried in such a manner to fetch maximum consideration against the GP No. 01/2016 Page 8 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State sale. The petitioner will furnish to the Court copy of sale deed/instrument forthwith while performing said obligations for the minor. 6.4 The minors' shares in such amount will be utilized for and for the benefit of minor, in buying immovable property/flat, in the joint name of petitioner Ms. Koyel Mathur and minor Baby Veronica or if feasible, in the exclusive name of Baby Veronica visavis the remaining amount will be utilized in buying the government securities or bonds or to be kept in fixed deposit in the scheme fetching maximum return in the bank, which will also be apprised to the Court forthwith. In the eventuality, bonds or securities or fixed deposit receipts are bought, the same will be for the period or renewed period which will go upto the age of maturity i.e. 06.06.2020, to be computed from her date of birth i.e. 06.06.2002. The income to be generated from such deposits, will also be utilized for the welfare of minor and the Court will be apprised thereof.
The petitioner will be bound by the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act r/w the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, which defines rights and obligations of the guardian appointed to deal with the property. To ensure its compliance, the petitioner will furnish administration bond within two months from today GP No. 01/2016 Page 9 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State and appropriate certificate (to the petitioner as guardian of minor/ward Baby Veronica to deal/dispose off the half undivided share in the property of minor), will be issued after furnishing of such administration bond.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today (Inder Jeet Singh) शुुकवार, 13 Jayaistha Saka 1938 Addl. District Judge02 (South) Saket, New Delhi / 03.06.2016 GP No. 01/2016 Page 10 of 10 Koyel Mathur vs. State GP No. 01/2016 03.06.2016 Bar has suspended the work today.
Present : Proxy counsel for petitioner.
None for State / general public / respondent.
It is scheduled for judgment today.
Vide separate judgment announced today, the petitioner's petition is allowed and in terms of judgment, the petitioner will furnish administration bond within two months from today and appropriate certificate (to the petitioner as guardian of minor/ward Baby Veronica to deal/dispose off the half undivided share in the property of minor), will be issued after furnishing of such administration bond.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed off.
File be consigned to record room.
(Inder Jeet Singh)
ADJ02 (South), Saket
N New Delhi / 03.06.2016
GP No. 01/2016 Page 11 of 10