Delhi District Court
Sh. Paras Ram Mehta (Since Deceased) vs Kamlesh Bakshi W/O. Late Sh. R.K. Bakshi on 25 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR : LD.
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Petition No. : SC/32796/16
In the matter of:
Sh. Paras Ram Mehta (since deceased),
S/o. Sh. Dewan Chand Mehta,
through his Legal Representatives :
a) Dr. Upender Mehta S/o. Sh. Paras Ram Mehta,
b) Ravinder Nath Mehta S/o. Sh. Paras Ram Mehta,
c) Brij Mohan Mehta S/o. Sh. Paras Ram Mehta,
All residents of House No. 44, Ashoka Park Extn.,
New Delhi110026.
....Petitioner.
Versus
1 Kamlesh Bakshi w/o. Late Sh. R.K. Bakshi
R/o. House No. 122, Purana Tezab Mill, Shahdara,
Delhi.
2 Asha Mehta, w/o. Late Sh. Pawan Kumar,
Waiting Room Attendant, Saharanpur Railway Station,
Northern Railway, Ambala Division, Saharanpur.
.....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 21.01.2014
Date of order when reserved : 19.09.2018
Date of order when announced : 25.09.2018
O R D E R :
1 Vide this order, the undersigned shall decide an application
U/s. 383 of Indian Succession Act for revocation of succession certificate issued on 30.05.1986 vide order dated 27.05.1986. As well as application U/s. 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating criminal proceeding against the petitioner Kamlesh Bakshi.
2 Brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi claiming herself to be the daughter of the deceased Mela Ram Mehta filed a succession petition on 10.01.1979 bearing petition no. 45/79 qua the debts and securities of late Sh. Mela Ram Mehta. In the petition, Pawan Kumar was mentioned as son of the deceased and Sh. Paras Ram Mehta was also mentioned as near relative of the deceased. Sh. Paras Ram Mehta appeared in the petition, after his appearance on 22.10.1979, the petition was dismissed in default for non prosecution. It is also to be noted that deceased Sh. Mela Ram Mehta had executed a registered Will dated 05.09.1977 in favour of his brother Sh. Paras Ram Mehta. Sh. Paras Ram Mehta filed a probate petition qua that Will. On 22.01.1979, Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi moved an application Under order 1 Rule 10 CPC to become a party in the probate petition, consequently she made party in that petition. It is contended that thereafter Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi and Sh. Pawan Kumar again filed a fresh succession petition in the year 1985 bearing no. 957/1985 concealing the earlier petition bearing no. 45/1979. Further she did not make Sh. Paras Ram Mehta as a respondent and had not mentioned his name in the list of near relative of the deceased. In that petition, it was mentioned by Ms. Kamlesh Bakshi that no will was executed by the deceased. Vide order dated 27.05.1986, succession petition was granted in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi and Sh. Pawan Kumar being uncontested thereafter on 30.05.1986 succession certificate was issued. 3 Thereafter, Sh. Paras Ram Mehta moved an application 383 of Indian Succession Act for revocation of succession certificate dated 30.05.1986. Vide order dated 03.07.1986, the effect of succession certificate was stayed. Sh. Paras Ram Mehta also moved an application U/s. 340 Cr.P.C. against Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi and Sh.
Pawan Kumar.
4 The probate petition filed by Sh. Paras Ram Mehta was dismissed by Ld. District Judge on merit, against that order an appeal was filed in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is stated that on 03.06.1987, Sh. Paras Ram Mehta expired.
5 On 14.12.1987, Hon'ble Delhi High Court restrained Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi and Pawan Kumar from withdrawing any amount left by Sh. Mela Ram from the Northern Railway. It is stated that on 17.01.1991, the court of Ms. Kamlesh Sabharwal sine dine adjourned the applications U/s. 383 of Indian Succession Act and another application U/s. 340 Cr.P.C., as the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
6 Vide order dated 22.01.2001, Hon'ble Delhi High court allowed the probate petition and directed the Ld. District Judge to grant Letters of Administration within four weeks. 7 It is contended on behalf of the applicant that it is only LRs of Sh. Paras Ram Mehta, who were entitled to inherit the property of Sh. Mela Ram Mehta (Deceased) and not Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi and Sh. Pawan Kumar. It is stated that as per letter of administration dues of provident fund, amount of gratuity and wages for the month of October, 1978 were granted to the LRs of Sh. Paras Ram Mehta. 8 On 21.01.2014, LRs of Sh. Paras Ram Mehta moved an application to revive the revocation petition bearing no. 594/86 which was adjourned sinedie. Vide order dated 23.01.2015, the application for revival of the petition bearing no.594/1986 was allowed. 9 It is contended on behalf of the present applicants i.e. LRs of Paras Ram Mehta that in an another court, it was stated by Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi that Sh. Pawan Kumar had died issueless on 19.09.1999, however on an RTI application filed by the LRs of Sh. Paras Ram Mehta it had came to light that Sh. Pawan Kumar was survived by his wife Smt. Asha Mehta. Notice was issued to Smt. Asha Mehta, however, she had not appeared to contest the present petition, hence proceeded exparte. It is contended that Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi has no regard to the process of law and she is habitual offender, hence, succession certificate granted in her favour may be revoked.
10 It is further prayed that proceedings Under section 340 Cr.P.C. may also be initiated against her as she falsely claimed to be the daughter of the deceased.
11 Arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and written arguments also filed on behalf of applicant. No arguments advanced by the nonapplicant Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi, despite opportunity. However, earlier she had filed reply to the revocation application wherein it was submitted that the 'Will' as propounded by the objector has nothing to do with succession certificate, it was also contended that, the will has been procured by playing fraud and is not genuine. It is further submitted that as per Railway rules, only children of the deceased are entitled to inherit the amount of provident fund and the same can not be disentitled by way of 'Will'.
12 Heard. Record perused.
13 Relevant provision of law to decide the present revocation petition is Section 383 of Indian Succession Act which is reproduced as under : Section 383. Revocation of certificate - A certificate granted under this Part may be revoked for any of the following caused, namely :
(a) that the proceedings to obtain the certificate were defective in substance;
(b) that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case;
(c) that the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;
(d) that the certificate has become useless and inoperative through circumstances;
(e) that a decree or order made by a competent Court in a suit or other proceedings with respect to effects comprising debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked.
14 In the first succession petition filed by Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi, Sh. Paras Ram Mehta was mentioned as near relatives of the deceased being brother of the deceased, however, in the second petition Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi did not mention about Sh. Paras Ram Mehta. It is also a fact that Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi was an objector in the probate petition qua Will dated 05.09.1977. Though, her objection in the probate petition was that the Will was forged, still she was expected to apprise the court that a probate petition qua an alleged will of the deceased is pending, but she chose not to disclose this fact in the second succession petition. Thus, there is clear concealment of fact on the part of the Kamlesh Bakshi, hence, the succession certificate got by her by concealing the above stated fact is liable to be revoked. 15 Further, in view of order dated 21.01.2001 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court whereby the Will dated 05.09.1977 has been probated and letter of administration has also been issued including the debts and securities qua which succession certificate has been granted by this Court. Since, an order by a Competent Court with respect to effects comprising debts and securities specified in the succession certificate has been passed, hence, the succession certificate under challenge is liable to be revoked. 16 Thus, the succession certificate dated 30.05.1986 prepared in terms of order dated 27.05.1986 is hereby revoked. Since, in pursuance of the succession certificate no benefits were released to Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi and Sh. Pawan Kumar, hence, they are not liable to return any amount.
17 So far as the, application under section 340 Cr.P.C. is concerned, as per section 340 CrPC two conditions must be fulfilled before which a complaint can be filed against a person who has given a false affidavit or evidence in proceedings before the court, namely (1) that the person has given false affidavit or false evidence in a proceeding before a Court; and (2) that, in the opinion of the Court, it is expedient in the interest of justice to make any enquiry against such person in relation to the offence committed by him.
The expression "expedient in the interest of justice"
means that it is not every incorrect or false statement that makes it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the Court should direct prosecution. The court should remember that too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object; prosecution would be resorted to only in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. The expediency would be judged by the court by weighing not by the magnitude of the injury suffered by the person affected by such offence but having regard to the effect or impact of that offence upon administration of justice. In Court on its own motion In Re State v. Sidharha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Delhi High Court has observed as follows":
"As to the nature of enquiry, which the court would undertake, under Section 340, was outlined by the Supreme Court, in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr.(2005) 4 SCC 370:
"23. In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice". This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint..."
18 From the above stated discussion it is clear that section 340 Cr.PC should not be initiated as a matter of right. 19 In the present matter Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi stated that she is the daughter of deceased Sh. Mela Ram Mehta and her mother's name is Harbans Kaur i.e. first wife of the deceased. It is contended on behalf of applicant that Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi and Sh. Pawan Kumr has no concern with the deceased. It is only that their father's name is also Mela Ram as such they tried to get benefit of the same in order to grab the property of the deceased. The present applicant and LRs of Sh. Paras Ram Mehta, who was the brother of the deceased and sole beneficiary in the will executed by the deceased. In the will dated 05.09.1977 itself, it was mentioned by the deceased that he had a wife, who was lunatic and was victim of mental illness and she had ran away from the house and had not been heard till then thereafter. Further, it was mentioned that she had given birth to a male child and the said child is with his grand mother in Punjab. The name of the male child has not been mentioned in the Will. Thus from the will it is clear that deceased had a family.
20 In the petition seeking probate of the will, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the objectors to the Will forms two branches, one is consisting of Ms. Kamlesh Bakshi and Sh. Pawan Kumar claiming themselves to be children of Sh. Mela Ram Mehta, through his first wife Smt. Harbans Kaur and the second branch consisting of Raksha Devi and Sh. Hardev claiming to be wife and son of the deceased. It is to be noted that in the probate petition, it was not held by the court that Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi is not the daughter of the deceased or that Sh. Pawan Kumar is not the son of the deceased. The Hon'ble High court only decided that the will has been duly executed. 21 The applicants have referred to a number of cases i.e. criminal cases against Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi and Sh. Pawan Kumar for intermeddling with the property of Sh. Mela Ram Mehta, further a civil case wherein they were sentenced to three months civil imprisonment for not obeying the injunction granted by the Court restraining them from interfering with the property of Sh. Mela Ram Mehta. It is also contended that in a different civil suit, a statement has been given by Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi that Sh. Pawan Kumar died issueless while in fact Sh. Pawan Kumar was survived by his wife Smt. Asha Mehta. It is to be noted that the Pawan Kumar was not having any children, thus, the statement made by Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi in the other court that Pawan Kumar died issueless is not false. 22 Further, for a false statement made in an another court in a different matter, action can not be taken in the present case. Whether Smt. Kamlesh Bakshi is or is not the daughter of the deceased Mela Ram Mehta is still doubtful. In these circumstances, the application Digitally signed Under section 340 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. by GAJENDER GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR SINGH Date:
File be consigned to Record Room. NAGAR 2018.09.25 22:31:03 +0530 Announced in the open court (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR ) on 25.09.2018 Administrative Civil Judgecum Additional Rent Controller (Central) Delhi.
THIS ORDER CONTAINS 14 PAGES
SC/32796/16
25.09.2018
Present : None.
Vide separate order of even date, the revocation application is allowed and succession certificate issued on 30.05.1986 is hereby revoked.
The application U/s. 340 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gajender Singh Nagar) ACJ/ARC (Central), Delhi/25.09.2018