Delhi District Court
Sh. Sohan Lal vs State on 30 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF ACJ/CCJ/ARC (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. VISHAL PAHUJA
SC No. 23763/16
1. Sh. Sohan Lal
S/o Late Sh. Bhoure Lal
2. Smt. Santosh
W/o Sh. Sohan Lal
Both C/o Sh. Kuldeep
Both R/o A-651, Raghubir Nagar
New Delhi - 110027.
Permanent R/o 1/620, Near Jain Mandir
Kala Kuan, Housing Board,
District Alwar, Rajasthan.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. STATE
2. Smt. Babli
W/o Late Sh. Pankaj Verma
D/o Sh. Babu Lal Chaudhary
R/o Garh, 60 Foot Road, Ram Nagar Colony,
District Alwar, Rajasthan.
...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.10.2015
Date of reserving Judgment : 30.09.2019
Date of decision : 30.09.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The present succession petition has been filed under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter, SC No. 2376316 Page No. 1 of 8 Sohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
referred to as 'the Act') by Sh. Sohan Lal and Smt. Santosh (hereinafter, referred to as 'the petitioners') Parents of Late Sh. Pankaj Verma (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') for grant of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities in the name of deceased.
2. The petition was instituted on 08.10.2015. Notice of the petition was issued to the general public by way of publication which was served on 21.10.2015 through 'Veer Arjun'. None from the general public filed any objections.
3. Reply/Objections was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, who is stated to be widow of the deceased. She took the plea that present petition is liable to be dismissed as petitioner no. 1 does not have any right or interest towards the securities/insurance policy of deceased. She also stated that the amount lying in the policy of the deceased be divided as per Hindu Succession Act amongst legal heirs as provided in Schedule-I. It is further pleaded that false criminal complaint has been filed against the respondent and her family members.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the petitioners denying the assertions of respondent and reinforcing their claim.
5. Ms. Vimla Mehra, AAO, LIC, 127, Vasant Vihar Branch, New Delhi put her appearance in the court and vide her statement recorded on 14.12.2015 has bought the details in respect of LIC policy No. 116456210 in the name of Pankaj SC No. 2376316 Page No. 2 of 8 Sohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
Verma having payable amount of Rs.2,35,964/- and has filed the copy of status report of account in respect LIC policy vide EX.P-1 (Colly-running into 15 pages).
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
6. In petitioner's evidence, Sh. Sohan Lal, petitioner no. 1 examined himself as PW- 1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW 1/A. He has relied on the documents:
1. Ex. PW 1/1 (OSR) : Death certificate of deceased Sh.
Pankaj Verma.
2. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) : Copy of PAN card of deceased.
3. Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) : Copy of driving licence of deceased.
4. Ex. PW1/4 & : Copies of election ID card as well as Ex. PW 1/5 (OSR) copy of aadhar card of PW-1.
5. Mark-B : Photocopy of written complaint dated 14.07.2015 to SHO, PS Mehrauli.
6. Mark-C : Photocopy of complaint dated 01.08.2015 to SHO PS Mehrauli.
7. Mark-D : Photocopy of suicide note of deceased.
8. Mark-E : Copy of postmortem report.
9. Mark-F : Copy of FIR.
10. Mark-G : Copy of case diary.
11. Mark-H : Copy of ATR.
He was duly cross-examined by the respondent no.2.
SC No. 2376316 Page No. 3 of 8Sohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
7. PW-2 Sh. Vikas Kumar, JA, Record Room (Criminal), South District, Saket Courts, Delhi was examined on 05.03.2018 who has brought the summoned record of CC no. 91/2/15, Goshwara no. 42/16, Mehrauli, titled as 'Sohan Lal Verma v. Babli & Ors. He relied on the documents i.e. Action Taken Report, PS Mehrauli vide Ex.PW2/1 (OSR). He further stated that after directions of Hon'ble Court of Ms. Shreya Arora Mehta, MM-5 (South), Saket under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., police registered FIR no. 0128/16 as Ex.PW2/2. He has also placed on record copy of his office ID Card as proof of identity vide Ex.PW2/3 (OSR). He was duly cross-examined by the respondent no.2.
8. PW -3 HC Shonis Kumar, No. 2130/SB, PIS NO.28081022 was examined on 23.04.2018 who has brought the summoned record i.e. original of FIR NO.0128 registered on 14.01.2016 with PS Mehrauli vide Ex.PW3/1 (OSR). He has also brought the original DD Entry No.19-B dated 14.07.2015 vide Ex.PW3/2 (OSR). He has also brought the original DD Entry No.50-B dated 01.08.2015 vide Ex.PW3/3 (OSR). He has brought the copy of suicide note of (four pages) deceased Pankaj which is duly attested by IO/ SI Bansi Lal of case FIR NO.0128/16 vide Ex.PW3/4. The said suicide note (original) has been sent to FSL. He was duly cross-examined by the respondent no.2.
No other witness was examined by the petitioner and accordingly on 23.04.2018 petitioner's evidence was closed. Thereafter, matter was listed for respondent's evidence.
SC No. 2376316 Page No. 4 of 8Sohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
9. Respondent no. 2 examined herself as RW-1 on 18.02.2019 by tendering her evidence as Ex. RW 1/A. In her affidavit the witness reiterated the same defence as taken in her WS. She was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. No other witness was examined by the respondent and on 18.02.2019, respondent no. 2 closed her evidence.
10. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments. Final arguments were addressed by both the Ld. Counsels. I have also gone through the record carefully.
11. The Succession Certificate Under Section 372 of 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-SC No. 2376316 Page No. 5 of 8
Sohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
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".
12. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners have successfully proved on record their case. It is argued that respondent no. 2 actually abetted the suicide committed by her husband deceased Sh. Pankaj Verma, so she is not entitled to any share in the property. It is further argued that an FIR Under Section 306 IPC has already been registered against respondent no. 2 for the abettment of suicide by her deceased husband same is exhibited on record PW-1. It is further argued that document Ex.P-1(colly) reflects the petitioner no. 1 being the nominee in the LIC policy as proved by the statement of Ms. Vimla Mehra. Hence, respondent no. 2 is not entitled to any share.
On the other hand, Ld. Cousnel for respondent no./ 2 argued that registration of FIR under Section 306 IPC against respondent no. 2 does not disqualify her from inheriting the property of deceased husband Sh. Pankaj Verma. It is further argued that respondent no.2 being the class-I Legal heir is entitled to succeed to the estate of her deceased husband. It is further argued that mere having a nominee in the policy does not mean that the class-I Legal heirs are excluded. Such, SC No. 2376316 Page No. 6 of 8 Sohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
amount consitute the entitlment of all the legal heirs of the deceased. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 relied upon the Judgment in Shreya Vidyarthi Vs. Ashok Vidyarthi in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 139 decided on 16.12.2015. It is further argued that petitioner no. 1 being the father (class-II legal heir) is not entitled to any share in any property of deceased son Sh. Pankaj Verma when respondent no. 2 being legally wedded wife is alive. Hence, respondent no. 2 is equally entitled to the share in LIC policy amount at par with petitioner no. 2.
13. It is pertinent to note that abettment of suicide or registration of FIR under Section 306 IPC against the respondent no. 2 does not fall in the disqualification under Section 25 of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hence, respondent no. 2 cannot be deprived from inheriting the property of her deceased husband being class-I legal heir. The Judgment relied upon by the respondent no. 2 clearly held the established principle of law which says that "The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with law of succession governing them".
In view of the settled position of Law, though, the petitioner no. 1 is nominee in the LIC policy, the petitioner no. 2 being the mother and respondent no. 2 being the wife are class-I legal heirs entitled to succeed the estate of deceased Sh. Pankaj Verma excluding all other heirs as specified in class-I of the SC No. 2376316 Page No. 7 of 8 Sohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
schedule.
14. No impediment Under Section 370 of Act has come to light which restricts the grant of certificate to the petitioner no. 2. In view of the evidence led on record, petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 2 are entitled to the debts and securities of the deceased as per Ex. P-1 (colly).
15. The Court accordingly directs that succession certificate be issued in the name of petitioner no. 2 Smt. Santosh and respondent no. 2 Smt. Babli in respect of debts and securities in the name of deceased as per Ex. P-1 (colly) half share each.
16. Court fees and indemnity bond with one surety be filed by petitioner within 15 days.
17. No further order is required to be passed. File be consigned to the Record Room. Digitally signed VISHAL by VISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date: 2019.09.30 15:38:39 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA) COURT ON 30th Day of September, ACJ/CCJ/ARC 2019 (WEST)/DELHI This Judgment contains Eight pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date:
2019.09.30 15:38:47 +0530 (VISHAL PAHUJA) ACJ/CCJ/ARC (WEST)/DELHI SC No. 2376316 Page No. 8 of 8 Sohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.