Delhi District Court
Smt. Banno Devi vs State on 1 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR : LD.
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Petition No. : SC/32781/16
In the matter of:
1. Smt. Banno Devi,
Since deceased through her legal heirs
(i) Sh. Dina Nath Arora,
S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram,
R/o 4/103, Nirankari Colony,
Delhi.
(ii) Sh. Om Prakash,
Since deceased through his legal heirs :
(a) Smt. Kamlesh Arora,
W/o Late Sh. Om Prakash,
(b) Sh. Dheeraj Arora,
S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash,
(c) Ms. Garima Arora,
D/o Late Sh. Om Prakash,
All R/o 4/103, Nirankari Colony,
Delhi.
2. Sh. Vicky Arora,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Lal,
R/o 4/103, Nirankari Colony,
Delhi. ....Petitioners.
Petition no. SC/32781/16 1/51
Versus
1. State
2. Smt. Sarita Arora,
W/o Sh. Ram Lal,
3. Smt. Monika Arora,
4. Smt. Neeru Malik,
Both D/o Late Sh. Ram Lal Arora,
All R/o 4/103, Nirankari Colony,
Delhi.
5. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
M. Division, Yusuf Sarai,
New Delhi.
Through by G.M. (Human Resources)
6. State Bank of India,
Green Park Extension Counter,
New Delhi
Through its Manager,
7. General Post Master,
G.P.O., New Delhi,
8. State Bank of India,
Parliamanet Street Branch,
DMat Section, New Delhi,
9. Sh. A.K. Lamba,
Manager (Finance),
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Petition no. SC/32781/16 2/51
(Refinery Head Quarters),
3rd Floor, Scope Complex,
Institutional Area, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi,
10. The Manager (P&G> S25),
Jeevan Prakash,
Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi. .....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 28.04.2005
Date of order when reserved : 30.04.2019
Date of order when announced : 01.05.2019
JUDGMENT:
1. The present succession petition has been filed by the petitioners namely Smt. Banno Devi (now deceased) and Sh. Vicky Arora in their favour qua debts and securities left by Sh. Ram Lal Arora, who died on 27.01.2005, claiming that Smt. Banno Devi was the mother and Sh. Vicky Arora was the son of the deceased. It is stated that respondent no.2 Smt. Sarita Arora was the widow and respondents no.3 and 4 namely Smt. Monika Arora and Smt. Neeru Malik were the daughters of the deceased. It is contended that the deceased was a permanent resident of 4/103, Nirankari Colony, Delhi. Petition no. SC/32781/16 3/51 Alongwith the present petition, list of legal heirs as ScheduleA and list of debts and securities left behind by the deceased as ScheduleB are also filed.
2. Notice qua present petition was given to the general public by way of publication in the newspaper "The Statesman" dated 09.02.2019, but none has appeared from general public to oppose or contest the present petition.
3. Objections were filed in the present petition on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 namely Smt. Sarita Arora and Smt. Monika Arora contending that the deceased was not having any son, or male member in his family. The deceased was living alone with his wife. It is contended that no documentary proof has been filed alongwith the petition to show that the petitioner no.2 Sh. Vicky Arora is son of the deceased. It is stated that the mother of the deceased died 10 years prior to filing of the present petition, hence the petitioner no.1 Smt. Banno Devi is not the mother of the deceased. It is contended that the Petition no. SC/32781/16 4/51 deceased has nominated his property in the name of his wife i.e. the respondent no.2, hence no one can claim a share in the property of the deceased which was his separate property. It is contended that the respondent no.2 Smt. Sarita Arora is the first and foremost wife of the deceased. It is contended that there is no legal, or social relation of the petitioners and the respondent no.2. It is again contended that the deceased was not having any mother alive, or any son.
4. Written objections were also filed on behalf of the respondents no.5 and 9 wherein it was stated that the deceased was an employee of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and had retired from the service on 30.11.2003. It is stated that at the time of his retirement, the deceased was paid all the terminal benefits, except the provident fund. It is stated that at the time of retirement, the deceased had filled in the SBF (pension papers) and he opted for Option5 of the Pension Scheme which envisages "Life time of the member with refund of principal annuity at the time of death of the member". It is stated that however in the case of death of Smt. Sarita Arora, prior to the death of Petition no. SC/32781/16 5/51 Sh. Ram Lal, the following alternative beneficiaries are nominated by him namely Sh. Vicky Arora (son) - 50%, Smt. Neeru Malik (daughter) - 25% and Smt. Monika (daughter) - 25%. It is contended that the deceased had nominated Smt. Sarita Arora as nominee to receive the benefits in case of his death. It is contended that after death of Sh. Ram Lal, refund of provident fund and SBF benefits can be disbursed to Smt. Sarita Arora being nominee for the said purpose.
5. Written statement also filed on behalf of respondent no.10 i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India wherein it is stated that no particulars of any alleged LIC Policy has been given in the entire petition and as such, the respondent no.10 cannot be made liable for the lapses of the petitioners. It is stated that no claim papers are received from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. pertaining to the deceased.
6. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.6 i.e. State Bank of India, Green Park Extension Counter has also appeared in the case and stated that account number given in the details is not correct. Similarly Petition no. SC/32781/16 6/51 stated by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.7 i.e. General Post Master that the particulars are not correct. The details filed on behalf of respondent no.8 i.e. State Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch.
7. It is to be noted that an application Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was also filed on behalf of petitioners which was duly replied on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 as well as Life Insurance Corporation of India.
8. Vide order dated 27.10.2005, the respondents no.5 to 10 were restrained from releasing any debts and securities to any of the parties till disposal of the present petition.
9. An application Under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3 on 02.06.2007 for dismissal of the suit as the petitioner no.1 Smt. Banno Devi has died and therefore, right to sue does not survive in favour of the petitioner no.2, or legal heirs of deceased petitioner no.1. That application was dismissed vide order Petition no. SC/32781/16 7/51 dated 15.10.2007 observing that the petition was filed by two petitioners. Since Sh. Vicky Arora is very much alive, hence the petition cannot be dismissed as abated. Further, vide this order, the application for vacating the stay moved on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3 was also dismissed. Further, on 07.09.2009 an application Under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was moved on behalf of legal heirs of deceased petitioner no.1 which was allowed vide order dated 03.05.2010. Thereafter, an application Under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC moved for bringing on record legal heirs of deceased Sh. Om Prakash (legal heir no. (ii) of deceased petitioner no.1) namely Smt. Kamlesh Arora (widow), Sh. Dheeraj Arora (son) and Ms. Garima Arora (daughter) which was also allowed vide order dated 13.02.2012.
10. Since no one had appeared on behalf of respondents no.2 to 4 for continuous 18 dates, hence the matter was proceeded exparte against them on 11.09.2012. However, later on, order dated 11.09.2012 was setaside vide order dated 26.10.2012. Petition no. SC/32781/16 8/51
11. Thereafter, notice Under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was given to the respondents no.5 and 9 as they had disbursed the amount in favour of the respondent no.2 despite stay which was duly replied on their behalf mentioning that the respondent no.5 is ready to deposit equivalent amount released to the respondent no.2 Smt. Sarita Arora before the Court so as to restore status quo ante. The main reason of issuance of notice was that the respondent no.5 has released the debts and securities of the deceased in favour of the respondent no.2 in violation of order dated 27.10.2005. Vide order dated 27.08.2016, the notice Under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was kept in abeyance to be decided at the final state i.e. alongwith the judgment.
12. Statement of respondent no.4 Smt. Neeru Malik recorded on 16.03.2017 whereby she has stated that she wants her share in the debts and securities left behind by her father namely Sh. Ram Lal Arora (deceased). In her crossexamination on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3 it is stated by this witness that Sh. Vicky Arora is residing at Rohini for last 45 years. It is stated that Smt. Banno Devi has left Petition no. SC/32781/16 9/51 behind three sons and three daughters, out of them two sons and one daughter have expired. It is stated that expired daughter has left behind Sh. Pappu, Sh. Bittoo, Sh. Tinku, Sh. Ashi and Ms. Indro. It is stated that Sh. Vicky is his real brother who is elder to her by 1012 years. It is stated that her mother Smt. Sarita Arora has three daughters including this witness. It is stated that one daughter has expired.
13. In order to substantiate their case, legal heirs of deceased petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 examined petitioner no.2 namely Sh. Vicky Arora as PW1 and one of the legal heir of deceased petitioner no.1 namely Sh. Dina Nath Arora as P1W1.
14. In his evidentiary affidavit (Ex. PWX) filed by PW1 Sh. Vicky Arora, it is stated by him that the deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora, S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Ram Arora died intestate on 27.01.2005, copy of his death certificate is Ex. PW1/1. The deceased was permanent resident of Delhi i.e. 4/103, Nirankari Colony, Delhi. The deceased Petition no. SC/32781/16 10/51 has left behind the original petitioners and the respondents no.2 to 4 as his only legal heirs. It is stated that the original petitioner no.1 namely Smt. Banno Devi died on 26.03.2006 i.e. after filing of the present petition and her death certificate is Ex. PW1/2. It is stated that Smt. Banno Devi during her lifetime had executed a Will dated 07.10.2005 in favour of her two sons and bequeathed all her movable and immovable properties to them, Will is marked as MarkA. It is stated that the petitioners are entitled to the debts and securities left behind by the deceased as mentioned in ScheduleB as their respective shares, ScheduleB is Ex. PW1/4. List of legal heirs of the deceased is Ex. PW1/5. In his crossexamination, it is stated by him that his name is Vicky Arora as per matriculation marksheet/ certificate and his father's name is Sh. Ram Lal Arora. It is stated that his date of birth is 29.06.1970. It is stated that he has brought original certificate of his matriculation issued by CBSE to show his date of birth, copy of which is Ex. PW1/R1. It is stated that his mother namely Smt. Krishna got demised in the year, 1969. It is stated that his father married second Petition no. SC/32781/16 11/51 time in the year, 1972, or 1973. It is stated that he was not residing with his father as he was taking care of his grandmother. It is stated that the saving bank account no. 007101021314 of the deceased was existing in ICICI Bank Ltd., however the same has not been mentioned in the petition. It is stated that he has withdrawn money through ATM from this account after the death of the deceased and also closed the said account. It is stated that he has no idea of shares purchased by his father from IOCL, Reliance, UTI etc. It is stated that he is residing at second floor and his step mother is residing at first and ground floors. It is stated that his grandmother during her lifetime had executed a Will wherein he is also one of the beneficiary. He could not tell qualification of his grandmother, though stated that she knew English language. It is accepted by him that he has not placed on record the identification proof of the deceased and Smt. Banno Devi. This witness denied residing at 118, Shiv Puri Extension, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. He has shown his ignorance to the fact that he has Voter I.D. Card bearing no. NBJ1734979 at that address, copy of the said Voter I.D. Card is marked as PW1/R2/Z. It is stated hat he Petition no. SC/32781/16 12/51 is presently residing at 85, Akash Kunj Apartment, Rohini, Sector9, Delhi. He accepts Voter I.D. Card bearing no. AFQ1680677, copy of which marked as PW1/R2/ZX. He also accepts Voter I.D. Card bearing no. AKC0343178 at the address of 4/103, Nirankari Colony, Delhi110009, copy of which is marked as PW1/R2/ZY. It is stated that he is residing at the second floor of the said house, however this fact has not been mentioned in the petition, or in the Voter I.D. Card. He exhibited his Voter I.D. Card bearing no. DL/04/056/063565 as Ex. PW1/R2. It is stated that he never changed his name from Vicky to Vicky Arora. He denied the suggestion that he has told to Smt. Sarita Arora and Smt. Monika Arora that he does not want to take money of the deceased with Indian Oil Company. It is stated that Smt. Banno Devi had three sons and one daughter namely Sh. Ram Lal Arora, Sh. Dina Nath Arora, Sh. Om Prakash and Smt. Ishwar Devi. It is stated that he does not bring on record Smt. Ishwar Devi as legal heir of Smt. Banno Devi as she predeceased Smt. Banno Devi. It is stated that Smt. Ishwar Devi has six children i.e. two sons and four daughters. This witness has brought on record his original passport, Petition no. SC/32781/16 13/51 certificate of matriculation, RC of his motorcycle, death certificate of his mother, his driving license, Election ICard, copies of which are Ex. PW1/R3 to Ex. PW1/R9 to show that he is son of the deceased. It is stated that he has not taken any treatment from the medical card of his father. It is stated that he got the Voter I.D. Card at the address of 85, Akash Kunj Apartment, Rohini in the year, 2012 as his son was studying there. It is stated that he has got 1/3rd share as per Will in the property of Smt. Banno Devi. It is stated that he has withdrawn a sum of Rs.2 lacs from the bank account of deceased after his death. It is stated that after the death of Sh. Ram Lal Arora, the respondent no.2 Smt. Sarita Arora was residing with her daughter Smt. Monika Arora at 4/103, Nirankari Colony, Delhi. A question was put to this witness that he never provide any financial help to Smt. Sarita Arora after the death of Sh. Ram Lal Arora. He denied the same and stated that Smt. Sarita Arora was his step mother. She hardly talks to him directly. It is stated that though he has not given money to her, however he used to bring household items for her. A suggestion was given to this witness that he was not residing with Sh. Ram Lal Arora, Petition no. SC/32781/16 14/51 rather he was residing at second floor as a tenant in the portion of Smt. Banno Devi, he denied the suggestion. It is accepted by him that he never resided at address given in the death certificate of his mother Smt. Krishna Arora. A suggestion was put to this witness that his father namely Sh. Ram Lal Arora never resided at the address given in the death certificate of Smt. Krishna Arora. This witness accepts this suggestion and stated that someone might have given incorrect address in the death certificate. It is stated by this witness that he was also called Dinesh. It is stated that his name is Vicky Arora on papers, however he used to be called Dinesh as well. It is stated that he has not mentioned his name as Dinesh in the entire petition, or affidavit. He denied the suggestion that Dinesh, S/o Sh. Ram Lal Arora died in the year, 1977, or 1978. It is again reiterated that he is Dinesh. In his crossexamination on behalf of respondents no.5 and 9, it is stated by this witness that he is aware that his father had nominated his step mother namely Smt. Sarita Arora as beneficiary in his service record. It is stated that his mother Smt. Krishna Arora was expired on 23.08.1972.
Petition no. SC/32781/16 15/51
15. P1W1 Sh. Dina Nath Arora (one of the legal heir of deceased petitioner no.1) deposed that he is one of the legal heir of deceased petitioner no.1 being her son. It is stated that original petitioner no.1 died on 26.03.2006 leaving behind three sons and one daughter namely Sh. D.N. Arora i.e. himself, Sh. Ram Lal Arora, Sh. Om Prakash Arora and Smt. Ishwari. It is stated that his brothers namely Sh. Ram Lal Arora, Sh. Om Prakash Arora and his sister Smt. Ishwari have already expired. It is stated that the petitioner no.2 Sh.Vicky Arora was born from the first wife (namely Smt. Krishna Devi) of Late Sh. Ram Lal Arora and after death of his first wife, Sh. Ram Lal Arora contracted second marriage with Smt. Sarita Arora (who is the respondent no.2 in the present matter) and from this wedlock, two daughters i.e. the respondents no.3 and 4 were born. This witness exhibited on record certified copy of complaint filed by the respondents no.2 and 3 against the petitioner no.1 and others U/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act as Ex. P1W1/1. In his cross examination, this witness exhibited copy of his Aadhaar Card as Ex. Petition no. SC/32781/16 16/51 X1 (OSR). It is stated by him that Sh. Ram Lal Arora had two wives namely Smt. Krishna and Smt. Vijay Arora. It is stated by him that he does not know any Smt. Sarita Arora, or Smt. Sarita Devi. At this stage, para no.02 of his evidentiary affidavit has been shown to this witness to which it is explained by this witness that Smt. Sarita Devi was originally known as Smt. Vijay Arora, however after her marriage with Sh. Ram Lal Arora, she changed her name to Sarita Arora. It is stated by him that initially name of Sh. Vicky Arora was Sh. Dinesh Arora, however during his childhood in the school the name was changed from Dinesh Arora to Vicky Arora. This witness admitted the Ration Card put to him which is Ex. X2 (OSR). It is stated by this witness that there is no document showing that Smt. Banno Devi is his mother. It is stated by him that in the government documents name of the father was mentioned and not the name of the mother. It is stated by him that he could show his document bearing name of his father as Sh. Sadhu Ram. It is stated by him that he could show the documents of his mother Smt. Banno Devi showing name of her husband as Sh. Sadhu Ram. It is accepted by him that he has not Petition no. SC/32781/16 17/51 mentioned the names of legal heirs of Smt. Ishwari Devi, who is daughter of Smt. Banno Devi. A question was put to this witness that he has thrown out Smt. Sarita Arora from the house after beating her, however he denied the same. The next question put to this witness was that Smt. Sarita Arora was in his custody, however he denied the same as well. It is stated by him that there is no document for change of name of Sh. Vicky Arora from Dinesh Arora to Vicky Arora. It is stated by this witness that there are only two daughters from the wedlock between Sh. Ram Lal Arora and Smt. Sarita Arora namely Smt. Neeru Malik and Smt. Monika Arora. A question was put to this witness tha who is Ranjana to which he relied that she was also daughter of Sh. Ram Lal Arora and Smt. Sarita Arora, however she died in her childhood. It is stated by him that MCD has changed number of their house quite a few times. The house bearing no. 4/103, Nirankari Colony was earlier numbered as 75, Nirankari Colony. It is stated by him that till the year, 1975 approximately, the number of the house was 75, Nirankari Colony, thereafter it was changed to 4/103, Nirankari Colony. He denied the suggestion that the property was Petition no. SC/32781/16 18/51 always having no. 4/103, Nirankari Colony. At this stage, copy of Will of father of this witness was exhibited as Ex. X3 wherein number of the property was mentioned as 4/103, Nirankari Colony. It is stated by him that he is the only child of Smt. Banno Devi alive. It is stated by him that other children of Smt. Banno Devi namely Sh. Ram Lal Arora, Sh. Om Prakash Arora and Smt. Ishwari are dead. It is stated that there are two children of Sh. Om Prakash Arora namely Smt. Garima and Sh. Dheeraj Arora. It is denied by him that Sh. Vicky Arora is his son, or they have conspire to harass Smt. Sarita Arora.
16. No other witness examined on behalf of legal heirs of deceased petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 and petitioners' evidence has been closed.
17. In rebuttal, respondents no.2 and 3 examined Sh. Prince Raushan, Junior Passport Assistant, Regional Passport Office as R2W 1; Sh. Raj Singh, ASO, Election Office as R2W2 and Sh. Navrattan Petition no. SC/32781/16 19/51 Kumar, SubRegistrar, 16, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi110054 as R2W3. It is to be noted that the respondents no.2 and 3 never came in person to depose before the Court.
18. R2W1 Sh. Prince Raushan, Junior Passport Assistant, Regional Passport Office has brought the record of passport bearing no. B5101566 dated 03.05.2001 in respect of Sh. Vicky Arora, S/o Sh. Ram Lal Arora, R/o 4/103, Nirankari Colony, Delhi110009, which is Ex. R2W1/1 (containing ten pages).
19. R2W2 Sh. Raj Singh, ASO, Election Office has brought the record i.e. the record of Voter ICards in respect of Sh. Vicky Arora, S/o Sh. Ram Lal Arora, R/o 4103, Gali No.4, Nirankari Colony, Delhi and Smt. Monika Arora, W/o Sh. Mohit Arora, R/o 4 103, Gali No.4, Nirankari Colony, Delhi, copies of which are Ex. R2W2/1 (containing nine pages).
20. R2W3 Sh. Navrattan Kumar, SubRegistrar, 16, Rajpur Petition no. SC/32781/16 20/51 Road, Civil Lines, Delhi110054 has brought the record in respect of death certificate of Smt. Krishna Arora, W/o Sh. Ram Lal Arora, showing place of death as E3/7A, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi and permanent address 75, Nirankari Colony, Delhi vide registration no. 1954 dated 30.08.1972, the certified copy of extract of relevant entry in this regard is Ex. R2/ W3/A (Collectively) (running into two pages).
21. No other witness was examined on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3, or on behalf of any other respondents and respondents' evidence was closed.
22. The Court has heard submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and has perused the record alongwith written synopsis filed on behalf of the parties.
23. It is to be noted that in a petition U/s 373 (3) of Indian Succession Act a decision can be made without determining questions Petition no. SC/32781/16 21/51 of law, or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding.
24. In the present matter, the petitioner no.1 has claimed herself to be mother of the deceased and the petitioner no.2 has claimed himself to be his son. The respondent no.2 stated to be widow of the deceased and the respondents no.3 and 4 are daughters of the deceased. The petitioners have claimed only their shares in the debts and securities of the deceased. They have no objection to the claim to the respondents no.2, 3 and 4. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that the petitioner no.2 is not the son of the deceased. Infact, they also claimed that the petitioner no.1 is not the mother of the deceased. Apart from that a number of procedural, technical and factual objections have been raised on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3.
25. At the outset, the undersigned has to clarify that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (i.e. the respondents no.5 and 9) who was having Petition no. SC/32781/16 22/51 debts and securities of the deceased has already released the money to the respondent no.2. Infact, they released that money in violation of specific order dated 27.10.2005 of this Court whereby they were restrained from releasing any debts and securities to any of the parties till disposal of the present petition. It is interesting to note that the respondents no.5 and 9 have filed a Civil Suit for recovery of that amount against the respondents no.2 and 3. That suit has been decreed in favour of the respondents no.5 and 9. It is to be noted that neither the respondent no.2, nor the respondent no.3 ever appeared before the undersigned. Infact, they did not come to depose in the present matter while infact, the matter related to their family and they were the best witnesses to depose about constitution and members of their family. Nonetheless from the discrepancies in the testimonies of the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.2 and by calling formal witnesses, the respondents no.2 and 3 have tried to prove their contentions. The objections taken on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 are dealt with as under : Petition no. SC/32781/16 23/51
(a) It is contended on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that the petitioners have given incorrect details qua accounts/ policies maintained with the respondents no.6, 7, 8 and 10 i.e. State Bank of India, General Post Office and Life Insurance Corporation of India. All of the said respondents have filed objections/ written statements claiming that incorrect particulars have been supplied to them and on this ground, the petition is liable to be dismissed as per Section 372 (2) of Indian Succession Act which provides that if, the petition contains any averment which the person verifying it knows, or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, that person shall be deemed to have committed an offence U/s 198 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). It is to be noted that there is no evidence on record to suggest that despite believing the particulars qua accounts/ policies maintained with State Bank of India, General Post Office and Life Insurance Corporation of India to be false, the petitioners have stated so. Though, it is correct that the particulars petitioners have stated were denied by the respondents no.6, 7, 8 and 10, however thereafter, the petitioners never insisted for this amount. From this evidence, it Petition no. SC/32781/16 24/51 cannot be said that despite believing the same to be false, the petitioners made these averments as these false averments could not and have not benefited them. The same appears to be made in ignorance of complete particulars of the accounts/ policies maintained.
(b) One of the ground which is most harped upon by the respondents no.2 and 3 is that though, it was stated before the Court that the petitioner no.1 died during pendency of the present petition, however infact she had died even prior to filing of the present petition. Further, it is stated that even after death of the petitioner no.1 her legal heirs were not brought on record within stipulated period of 90 days, hence petition stands abated. It is contended that their cannot be two contradictory orders in a particular case, hence once petition stands abated against the petitioner no.1, the petition against the petitioner no.2 also does not sustain as contradictory judgments cannot be passed in the same petition. It is contended that the right to sue does not survives in the present case as it was personal to the petitioner no.1, hence upon death of the petitioner no.1 the estates of deceased would Petition no. SC/32781/16 25/51 devolve upon his (deceased's) remaining ClassI legal heirs and would not go to ClassII legal heirs. It is stated that all the legal heirs of deceased petitioner no.1 were not impleaded after her death. It is contended that the abatement of petition was never setaside, hence all the evidence in the matter become non est. To support his contention, Ld. Counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 relied upon a number of cases i.e. Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan Vs. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, (1986) 1 SCC 118; RM P. KP. AR. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. V.S. @ S.V.V. Subramanian Chettiar (dead) & Anr., AIR 1958 Mad. 142; Puran Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 205 and Bhuteshwar Vs. Indru & Ors., R.S.A. No. 333 of 2002 decided on 28.04.2014. These grounds of the respondents no.2 and 3 are not tenable as though it is claimed by the respondents no.2 and 3 that Smt. Banno Devi had died prior to filing of the present petition, there is no death certificate of her filed on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 to show, if she has died prior to filing of the present petition. Per contra, original death certificate of Smt. Banno Devi has been filed on record Petition no. SC/32781/16 26/51 on behalf of the petitioners which shows that she died on 26.03.2006. It is to be noted that the present petition was filed in April, 2005 i.e. much prior to death of Smt. Banno Devi. Vide order dated 15.10.2007 Ld. Predecessor of this Court decided an application Under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC filed on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3. Even in that application, it was contended on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that after death of the petitioner no.1, right to sue does not survive in favour of the legal heirs of deceased petitioner no.1, or the petitioner no.2, however that application was dismissed. It was observed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court that the present petition was filed by the two petitioners i.e. the petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.2. It was observed that the petitioner no.2 claims himself to be son of the deceased, though the respondents no.2 and 3 denies that fact. It was further observed by the Court that right to sue does survive in favour of the petitioner no.2 and the petition cannot be dismissed Under Order 22 CPC. This order was not even challenged by the respondents no.2 and 3. The same has not been setaside in any appeal, or revision, hence the said order attained finality. In that order Petition no. SC/32781/16 27/51 it was confirmed by the Court that right to sue does survive. It is further to be noted that vide order dated 03.05.2010, the application Under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC moved on behalf of the legal heirs of deceased petitioner no.1, Smt. Banno Devi was also allowed and her legal heirs i.e. Sh. Dina Nath Arora, Sh. Om Prakash Arora, Sh. Vicky Arora, Smt. Sarita Devi, Smt. Monika Arora and Smt. Neetu Malik were brought on record. Even that order has not been challenged on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 till date. The same has not been setaside in any appeal, or revision, hence the said order also attained finality. Thus, the respondents no.2 and 3 have raised the issues which have already been decided by Ld. Predecessor of this Court and have attained finality. The reason given by the Ld. Predecessor holds correct even today. It is again reiterated that the present petition has been filed by the two petitioners. The death of any one of them will not amount to dismissal of the present petition in toto, rather the petition was survived by one of the petitioner. Further, vide order dated 03.05.2010 legal heirs of Smt. Banno Devi were taken on record. This order was never challenged, thus the said order implies Petition no. SC/32781/16 28/51 that delay in impleading the legal heirs of deceased petitioner no.1 namely Smt. Banno Devi were condoned and that is why legal heirs were taken on record. It is settled principle of law that a suit gets abated automatically, if the legal heirs of deceased petitioners are not impleaded in stipulated time. However, in the present matter by allowing the application of the legal heirs of Smt. Banno Devi, Ld. Predecessor restored the petition on her behalf. The contention of Ld. Counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 that after the death of the petitioner no.1 share of the petitioner no.1 in the estate of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora would fall back to the first ClassI legal heirs of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora, is not correct as as per Hindu Law succession opens on the death of a person. The day on which Sh. Ram Lal Arora died share of his mother in his estate become confirm, thus if, later on his mother Smt. Banno Devi would die her share in the undivided estate of Sh. Ram Lal Arora would devolve upon legal heirs of Late Smt. Banno Devi and not upon ClassI, or ClassII legal heirs of Sh. Ram Lal Arora. Furthermore, the right to claim share by Smt. Banno Devi in the estate of her deceased son cannot be equated with Petition no. SC/32781/16 29/51 the claim on the basis of tort of defamation, malicious prosecution and criminal intimidation. Thus, the case relied upon by Ld. Counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 i.e. Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan (Supra); RM P. KP. AR. Arunachalam Chettiar (Supra) and Puran Singh & Ors. (Supra) does not have any bearing on the present matter.
(c) It is contended on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that all the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner no.1 have not been impleaded in the matter. Again, it is to be noted that Smt. Banno Devi was one of the petitioner in the present matter. It was for her legal heirs to come forward to prosecute the matter. Even if, all the legal heirs would not come, ones who have came to prosecute the matter are entitled to sue on behalf of share of Smt. Banno Devi i.e. the petitioner no.1. Though, it is correct that the alleged Will of Smt. Banno Devi has not been proved on record, as per law, however in that event any share which would have been given to Smt. Banno Devi that would be shared by her legal heirs proportionately as per Hindu Succession Act. Petition no. SC/32781/16 30/51
(d) It is contended on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that Smt. Banno Devi is not the mother of the deceased. It is to be noted that in the present matter, name of deceased is Sh. Ram Lal Arora. Admittedly, the name of his father in all the records brought by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as well as other documents shows that name of his father was Sh. Sadhu Ram, or Sh. S.R. Arora. From the records of the respondents no.5 and 9 as well as death certificate of Smt. Banno Devi, it is apparent that Smt. Banno Devi was wife of Sh. Sadhu Ram and deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora was son of Sh. Sadhu Ram. Even in the details of family, Smt. Banno Devi has been mentioned as mother of Sh. Ram Lal Arora. Thus, it is a frivolous contention raised on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 just to delay the matter. It is hereby held that Smt. Banno Devi is/ was the mother of the deceased.
(e) It is contended on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that the petitioner no.1 (ii) Sh. Om Prakash also died and even his legal heirs were brought on record beyond prescribed period in the matter. It Petition no. SC/32781/16 31/51 is to be noted that the application qua impleadment of his legal heirs was allowed on 13.02.2012. Even that order was not challenged, or has not been setaside in any appeal, or revision, thus attained finality. It is to be noted that act of Court would not prejudice anyone. Once, this application was allowed and not challenged in the prescribed time, the respondents no.2 and 3 lost their right to raise this contention again at this stage.
(f) It is contended on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that the respondent no.2 is nominee qua debts and securities of deceased kept with the respondents no.5 and 9 i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., hence neither the petitioner no.1, nor her legal heirs, or the petitioner no.2 has any right qua debts and securities of the deceased. Even, this contention of the respondents no.2 and 3 has already been dealt with by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 15.10.2007. Infact, the said reasons holds true even today. It is again reiterated that a nominee takes the money on behalf of successors only and nomination does not mean stepping into the shoes of successors. Mere nomination does not Petition no. SC/32781/16 32/51 confer beneficial interest in the amount of the deceased and nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount, on the payment of which the department gets a valid discharge. Further, it is no longer res integra that a nominee is only entitled to receive debts and securities of the deceased and he is trustee of the legal heirs of the deceased. Nomination cannot over ride the law of succession. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Smt. Sarbati Devi Vs. Smt. Usha Devi, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 346; Vishin N. Khanchandani Vs. Vidhya Lachmandass Khanchandani, AIR 2000 SC 2747 and Ram Ballabh Dhandania Vs. Gangadhar Nathmal, 1956 AIR Calcutta 275. At this stage, the undersigned wish to point out that the respondent no.2 has already received the money and now she has gone missing due to which decree passed in favour of the respondents no.5 and 9 cannot be executed.
(g) The most contentious point raised on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 in the present matter is that the petitioner no.2 is not the son of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora. It is contended that the Petition no. SC/32781/16 33/51 petitioner no.2 claims himself to be son from first wife of the deceased namely Smt. Krishna Arora, however in his crossexamination, it was stated by the petitioner no.2 that he was born on 29.06.1970, while in the same crossexamination, it is stated that Smt. Krishna Devi died in the year, 1969. It is contended that how a person can be born after death of her mother. It is contended that even records of the respondents no.5 and 9 shows that date of birth of son of Sh. Ram Lal Arora namely Sh. Vicky Arora was 29.05.1972 and not 29.06.1970, thus apparently person present in the Court is not the son of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora. It is contended that there was a son of Sh. Ram Lal Arora namely Sh. Dinesh Arora who died in suspicion circumstances, now the person present himself as Sh. Vicky Arora before the Court is trying to take benefit of the same. It is stated that there are multiple I.D. Cards of Sh. Vicky Arora and in some of them his name has been written as Vicky only. It is stated that he is having three I.D. Cards, one of Krishna Nagar, second one of Rohini and third one of Nirankari Colony address, thus he is not a reliable person. It is contended that the death certificate of Smt. Krishna Arora allegedly Petition no. SC/32781/16 34/51 first wife of deceased is manipulated and forged as the same shows her permanent address to be 75, Nirankari Colony, Delhi, while Sh. Ram Lal Arora was always a resident of 4/103, Nirankari Colony, Delhi. It is contended that P1W1 Sh. Dina Nath Arora trying to cover up this contention by stating that the number of their house was changed many times by the MCD, while infact since joining of service till his retirement, the address of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora remains the same i.e. 4/103, Nirankari Colony, Delhi and it never changed to 75, Nirankari Colony, Delhi. It is pointed out that even in the Will of father of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora and Sh. Dina Nath Arora, their address has been mentioned as 4/103, Nirankari Colony, Delhi. It is pointed out that the name of alleged mother of Sh. Vicky Arora is changing at different places as at some place it has been mentioned as Krishna Arora, at some place it has been mentioned as Krishna Kumari, at some place it has been mentioned as Krishna Wanti, or at some place it has been mentioned as Krishna Devi. Even in his passport, Sh. Vicky Arora has given name of her mother as Smt. Sarita Arora. It is contended that excuse taken on behalf of the petitioner Petition no. SC/32781/16 35/51 no.2 that earlier Sh. Vicky Arora was Sh. Dinesh Arora and later on, his name was changed, is a false contention as there was no record of change of name. Further, there are documents of the same time period wherein both the names i.e. Sh. Dinesh Arora and Sh. Vicky Arora have been used. It is stated that in the Ration Card of deceased dated 11.07.1996, Ex. X2 name of his son has been shown as Dinesh, while in the certificate of matriculation dated 22.08.1988 which is Ex. PW 1/R4 name of the petitioner no.2 has been shown as Vicky Arora, thus mentioning of name of his son as Sh. Dinesh Arora by deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora, even after 8 years of change of name shows that Sh. Dinesh Arora and Sh. Vicky Arora are two different persons. It is contended that the respondent no.4, though the daughter of the respondent no.2, however she has been influenced by the petitioners that is why she has stated in her evidence that the petitioner no.2 is her brother. Though, she has stated that he is her real brother, while even as per the own case of the petitioners, he was step brother of the respondent no.4. It is pointed out by Ld. Counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 that same Advocate Sh. G.S. Dogra has filed vakalatnama for Petition no. SC/32781/16 36/51 the petitioners and the respondent no.4 which shows their connivance.
(i) The undersigned has perused the contention/ arguments on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3.
(ii) The contention of Ld. Counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 though tempting, however not true. From the records of the respondents no.5 and 9, it is apparent that Sh. Vicky Arora has been shown as son of the deceased and was also made entitled for the debts and securities of the deceased. In all the documents of Sh. Vicky Arora name of his father has been shown as Sh. Ram Lal Arora. The present case has been filed only in the year, 2005, however these documents i.e. certificate of matriculation (of the year, 1988); passport of Sh. Vicky Arora (of the year, 2001); RC of vehicle (of the year, 2003) and license (of the year, 2003) which are dating back to the period much prior to filing of the present case, or even date of death of Sh. Ram Lal Arora i.e. 27.01.2005, speak volume about their genuineness. This Court cannot believe that the petitioner no.2 has Petition no. SC/32781/16 37/51 started way back in the year, 1988 to manipulate the said documents with a view to harass widow of deceased after his death. It is correct that in his crossexamination dated 30.03.2013 Sh. Vicky Arora has stated his date of birth as 29.06.1970 and demise of his mother to be of the year, 1969, however both these dates came on the same page of the crossexamination, from perusal of this crossexamination, it can be said that at that time under crossexamination in the Court, he could not tell exact year of demise of her mother. He simply stated the approximate year as it is unbelievable from a logical view as a person cannot be born after death of mother, however possibly under pressure of crossexamination, this witness deposed otherwise. Infact, later on this witness brought death certificate of his mother which clearly shows date of death of his mother to be 23.08.1972. The date was registered vide registration no.1954 on 30.08.1972 and the certificate was issued on 11.01.2018. The respondents no.2 and 3 have called a witness i.e. R2W3 from MCD to clarify this aspect. The witness has brought certified copy of the register wherein they record death of the persons. This document clearly suggest that on 30.08.1972 bearing Petition no. SC/32781/16 38/51 registration no. 1954 the fact of death of Smt. Krishna Arora, W/o Sh. Ram Lal Arora has mentioned. Now, here comes one more contradiction in the matter that permanent address of Smt. Krishna Arora was mentioned as 75, Nirankari Colony, Delhi, however address of Sh. Ram Lal Arora was 4/103, Nirankari Colony, Delhi. On the basis of which, it is claimed by the respondents no.2 and 3 that this document is manipulated one. On the basis of documents and records of MCD, the undersigned is of the view that it is too difficult to manipulate such an old record of MCD of the year, 1972 only for the purpose of the present petition which was filed in the year, 2005. An explanation has been given on behalf of the petitioners that MCD has changed number of their house quite a few times as now their house is bearing no. 4/103, Nirankari Colony, however prior to 1972 their address was 75, Nirankari Colony. One more explanation was given on behalf of the petitioners that the address in the death certificate might be wrongly mentioned. Anything out of them can be true. However, a few things are to be noted that as per records of the respondents no.5 and 9 there was a first wife of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Petition no. SC/32781/16 39/51 Arora. It is also not disputed that name of first wife of deceased was Smt. Krishna, while the second name might be Arora, Devi, Wanti, or Kumari. It is really a herculean task to find out a death certificate of a lady of same name with the same name of husband in the same locality and the perfect date of death i.e. after birth of Sh. Vicky Arora on 29.06.1970. Thus, from perusal of this document, the factum of death of Smt. Krishna, second name might be Arora, Devi, Wanti, or Kumari in the year, 1972 is so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the present case to act upon the supposition that it exists. The details of Smt. Krishna was filed by deceased in his office on 26.09.1969 and again on 03.02.1970 in the nomination forms. In both, he has nominated to Smt. Krishna as full nominee i.e. 100%. Nomination of Smt. Krishna in the record of the respondents no.5 and 9 in the year, 1970 clearly shows that she was alive in the year, 1970. It is hard to manipulate such an old record, so this document of the respondents no.5 and 9 which is equally relied upon by the respondents no.2 and 3 clearly suggests that Smt. Krishna was alive in the year, 1970, thus her death certificate appears to be Petition no. SC/32781/16 40/51 genuine, though the address of the same might be different as incorrect, or for some other reasons i.e. change of address.
(iii) Now, again, it is contended on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that in the records of the respondents no.5 and 9 date of birth of Sh. Vicky Arora, S/o Sh. Ram Lal Arora has mentioned to be 29.05.1972, while in his document Sh. Vicky Arora has mentioned his date of birth as 29.06.1970. In the nomination form dated 03.11.2003 the date of birth of Sh. Vicky Arora was mentioned as 29.05.1972 by deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora. It is to be noted that in nomination form dated 30.06.1980 name of his son has been shown by deceased as Sh. Dinesh Arora and his age was written as 11 years. This age of the son was corresponding to the record of Sh. Vicky Arora which as per official records born on 29.06.1970. Thus, in the year, 1980 he was 1011 years. After first stating his son to be 11 years in the year, 1980, Sh. Ram Lal Arora in another nominated form which was filed in 03.11.2003 stated date of birth of Sh. Vicky Arora as 29.05.1972, while date of birth of Sh. Vicky Arora is 29.06.1970 which shows that Petition no. SC/32781/16 41/51 at the time of filling the nomination form deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora could not correctly fill up the date of birth of his son as he has mentioned the correct date, however he had mentioned the incorrect month and year.
(iv) The contention of the respondents no.2 and 3 that there was a son of deceased namely Sh. Dinesh Arora who died under suspicion circumstances, is not tenable as there is no police record, police complaint, or death certificate of Sh. Dinesh Arora filed on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3. As per nomination form, Sh. Dinesh Arora was 11 years old in 1980. The respondents no.2 and 3 could not bring any photograph of Sh. Dinesh Arora who lived atleast for long 11 years to show that he was an another person. Apparently, the suggestion given by the petitioners that name of Sh. Dinesh Arora was changed to Sh. Vicky Arora appears to be more probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the present case to act upon the supposition that it exists.
Petition no. SC/32781/16 42/51
(v) It is to be noted that Sh. Ram Lal Arora died on 27.01.2005, while he mentioned the name of his son as Sh. Vicky Arora in details filled in on 13.11.1997 as well as in the year, 2003 he again himself mentioned name of his son as Sh. Vicky Arora in nomination form. Thus, the factum of change of name of son of deceased from Sh. Dinesh Arora to Sh. Vicky Arora is already present in the records of the respondents no.5 and 9 which was submitted in the office by deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora. Their remain no doubt qua fact that Sh. Vicky Arora present in the Court is the son of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora. Their might be three I.D. Cards of Sh. Vicky Arora, however in all of them his father's name is Sh. Ram Lal Arora. Further, it is already mentioned that he has shifted from Nirankari Colony to Rohini for the education of his children. Mentioning name of Smt. Sarita Arora i.e. step mother of Sh. Vicky Arora in passport is not very significant contradiction.
(vi) Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 has vehemently argued that when the notice in the name of Sh. Vicky Arora of this Petition no. SC/32781/16 43/51 Court went to the address 4/103, Nirankari Colony, Delhi, the same was accepted by Sh. Dina Nath Arora stating that Sh. Vicky Arora is his son. On this report, it is vehemently argued that Sh. Vicky Arora is son of Sh. Dina Nath Arora. There is no documentary evidence on record to this effect apart from the report of Process Server. Apparently, the respondents no.2 and 3 tried to raise contradictions disproportionately. If, a person would tell Process Server son of his deceased brother to be his son for accepting the summon/ notice that does not mean that the person would legally become his son.
(vii) Now, we must talk about the conduct of the respondents no.2 and 3. A petition U/s 12 of D.V. Act was filed by the respondents no.2 and 3 namely Smt. Sarita Arora and Smt. Monika Arora way back on 19.02.2008 through the same counsel Sh. M.S. Jadhav which was against Sh. Vicky Arora, Sh. Dina Nath Arora and others wherein they accepted Sh. Vicky Arora as son of Late Sh. Ram Lal Arora in the memo of parties. They have categorically stated in para no.03 that the respondent no.1 i.e. Sh. Vicky Arora is son of the Petition no. SC/32781/16 44/51 deceased husband (i.e. Sh. Ram Lal Arora) of the aggrieved widow i.e. Smt. Sarita Arora. This petition was backed by her own affidavit. Even, after filing of this affidavit and petition under D.V. Act, the respondents no.2 and 3 has audacity to contest the present matter for a long 13 years on the false contention that Sh. Vicky Arora is not the son of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora. It is contended on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that the said D.V. Petition was not decided on merits as Sh. Vicky Arora and Sh. Dina Nath Arora have mentioned about the present succession petition in the same. This argument is misplaced as the respondents no.2 and 3 have filed written statement in the present matter on 27.10.2005 wherein she has categorically denied that Sh. Vicky Arora is son of the deceased, while in 2008 they have filed the petition under D.V. Act wherein they have stated that Sh. Vicky Arora is son of her late husband. Thus, their conduct is quite objectionable. Their quest was just to delay the present proceedings. Apparently, the respondents no.2 and 3 were aware of their falsity that is why they chose not to come before the Court for evidence. In these circumstances, it is hereby held that Sh. Vicky Petition no. SC/32781/16 45/51 Arora is son of the deceased.
(h) It is contended on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 that the present petition has not been signed by Smt. Banno Devi, while the same has been signed by Sh. Vicky Arora only. It is to be noted that the petition is bearing sign of Sh. Vicky Arora and one thumb impression, though it is not written on the thumb impression whose impression the same is. It is further contended that the petition is accompanied by only one affidavit of Sh. Vicky Arora, hence Smt. Banno Devi did not file the petition. The contention is not tenable, though, it is correct that the petition is accompanied by affidavit of Sh. Vicky Arora only. As per Order 6 Rule 15 CPC, the pleadings can be verified by the party, or by one of the parties of pleading. Further, the person verifying the same is required to file affidavit. In the present case, pleadings has been verified by Sh. Vicky Arora. He has also filed his affidavit. Thus, there is no irregularity in this regard. As per Order 6 Rule 14 CPC pleadings are required to be signed by the party/ parties. In the present matter, one of the party i.e. Sh. Vicky Arora has Petition no. SC/32781/16 46/51 signed the pleadings. There is a thumb impression also on the petition which is argued to be of Smt. Banno Devi. Per contra, there is no evidence on record to show that the said thumb impression is not of Smt. Banno Devi. In the present matter, contention of the respondents no.2 and 3 since beginning was that Smt. Banno Devi has died even prior to deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora. It has already been held that it was a false contention. Apparentely, the respondents no.2 and 3 are not reliable. Their only quest was to delay the matter by taking any false contention. Hence, the contention of the respondents no.2 and 3 that the petition was not filed by Smt. Banno Devi cannot be accepted. Thus, there is no irregularity in the petition, or accompanied affidavit.
26. In view of the above discussion, it is hereby held that (a) Smt. Banno Devi (i.e. the petitioner no.1) was the mother and ClassI legal heir of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora and after death of Smt. Banno Devi, her legal heirs will be entitled to share of Smt. Banno Devi in the undivided debts and securities of deceased; (b) Sh. Vicky Arora (i.e. the petitioner no.2) is the son of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Petition no. SC/32781/16 47/51 Arora from his first wife Smt. Krishna Arora; (c) Smt. Sarita Arora (i.e. the respondent no.2) is the second wife/ widow of deceased and
(d) Smt. Monika Arora and Smt. Neeru Malik (i.e. the respondents no.3 and 4) are the daughters of the deceased.
27. In view of the abovementioned observations, the Court is of the considered opinion that there is primafacie no impediment for grant of Succession Certificate qua debts and securities of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora in favour of petitioners as well as respondents no.
2 to 4 in the following ratio :
(i) Legal heirs of deceased : 1/5th share
petitioner no.1 Smt. Banno Devi
(as she died during pendency
of the present petition)
(ii) Petitioner no. 2 namely : 1/5th share
Sh. Vicky Arora
(iii) Respondent no.2 namely : 1/5th share
Smt. Sarita Arora
(iv) Respondent no.3 namely : 1/5th share
Smt. Monika Arora
(v) Respondent no.4 namely : 1/5th share
Petition no. SC/32781/16 48/51
Smt. Neeru Malik.
28. It is to be noted that in the present matter, a Will of Smt. Banno Devi was brought on record, however the Will was never proved, hence 1/5th portion in the debts and securities of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora which has come into the share of Smt. Banno Devi would be distributed amongst all her legal heirs.
29. As per reply of the respondent no.5 i.e. Indian Oil Corporation, due to oversight an amount of Rs. 9,74,139.47 towards provident fund has already been released in favour of the respondent no.2 namely Smt. Sarita Arora, thus there was an amount of Rs. 9,74,139.47 qua provident fund as part of debts and securities of deceased. The deceased was also maintaining a DP account having Client I.D. No. 50004840 with State Bank of India having valuation of 900 shares of Indian Oil Corporation and 300 shares of Petronet LNG Limited having a value of Rs. 4,15,000/. However, thereafter, another statement of the said DP account was filed wherein closing Petition no. SC/32781/16 49/51 balance of Indian Oil Corporation was shown as NIL and only 300 shares of Petronet LNG Limited has been mentioned, but no market value of 300 shares of Petronet LNG Limited was mentioned. Be that as it may, let a succession Certificate for a total sum of Rs. 13,89,139.47 (Rs. 9,74,139.47 + Rs. 4,15,000/) granted accordingly. Succession certificate be drawn on deposit of requisite Court Fee of Rs. 34,728/ and on furnishing an Indemnity Bond with one surety within 15 days.
30. In the present matter, vide order dated 27.10.2005, the respondents no.5 to 10 were restrained from releasing any debts and securities to any of the parties till disposal of the present petition, however Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (i.e. the respondents no.5 and 9) who is having debts and securities of the deceased has already released the money to the respondent no.2. The respondents no.5 and 9 have promised that they would deposit the amount as and when directed by the Court. Now, they are hereby directed to comply their promise to deposit amount of other legal heirs of deceased, except share of the Petition no. SC/32781/16 50/51 respondent no.2 who has already received the entire amount. Let the amount be deposited within 15 days. It would be the responsibility/ duty of the respondents no.5 and 9 to recover their money from the respondent no.2 by way of decree passed in favour of the respondents no.5 and 9 in the separate Civil Suit.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
GAJENDER by GAJENDER
SINGH SINGH NAGAR
Date: 2019.05.01
NAGAR 15:59:27 +0530
Announced in the open court (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR )
on 01.05.2019 Administrative Civil Judgecum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi.
THIS JUDGMENT CONTAINS 51 PAGES
Petition no. SC/32781/16 51/51
SC/32781/16
01.05.2019
Present : None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, it is held that there is primafacie no impediment for grant of Succession Certificate qua debts and securities of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora in favour of petitioners as well as respondents no. 2 to 4 in the following ratio :
(i) Legal heirs of deceased : 1/5th share petitioner no.1 Smt. Banno Devi (as she died during pendency of the present petition)
(ii) Petitioner no. 2 namely : 1/5th share Sh. Vicky Arora
(iii) Respondent no.2 namely : 1/5th share Smt. Sarita Arora
(iv) Respondent no.3 namely : 1/5th share Smt. Monika Arora
(v) Respondent no.4 namely : 1/5th share Smt. Neeru Malik.
It is to be noted that in the present matter, a Will of Smt. Banno Devi was brought on record, however the Will was never proved, hence 1/5th portion in the debts and securities of deceased Sh. Ram Lal Arora which has come into the share of Smt. Banno Devi Petition no. SC/32781/16 52/51 would be distributed amongst all her legal heirs.
As per reply of the respondent no.5 i.e. Indian Oil Corporation, due to oversight an amount of Rs. 9,74,139.47 towards provident fund has already been released in favour of the respondent no.2 namely Smt. Sarita Arora, thus there was an amount of Rs. 9,74,139.47 qua provident fund as part of debts and securities of deceased. The deceased was also maintaining a DP account having Client I.D. No. 50004840 with State Bank of India having valuation of 900 shares of Indian Oil Corporation and 300 shares of Petronet LNG Limited having a value of Rs. 4,15,000/. However, thereafter, another statement of the said DP account was filed wherein closing balance of Indian Oil Corporation was shown as NIL and only 300 shares of Petronet LNG Limited has been mentioned, but no market value of 300 shares of Petronet LNG Limited was mentioned. Be that as it may, let a succession Certificate for a total sum of Rs. 13,89,139.47 (Rs. 9,74,139.47 + Rs. 4,15,000/) granted accordingly. Succession certificate be drawn on deposit of requisite Court Fee of Rs. 34,728/ and on furnishing an Indemnity Bond with one surety within 15 days.
In the present matter, vide order dated 27.10.2005, the respondents no.5 to 10 were restrained from releasing any debts and securities to any of the parties till disposal of the present petition, however Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (i.e. the respondents no.5 and 9) who is having debts and securities of the deceased has already released Petition no. SC/32781/16 53/51 the money to the respondent no.2. The respondents no.5 and 9 have promised that they would deposit the amount as and when directed by the Court. Now, they are hereby directed to comply their promise to deposit amount of other legal heirs of deceased, except share of the respondent no.2 who has already received the entire amount. Let the amount be deposited within 15 days. It would be the responsibility/ duty of the respondents no.5 and 9 to recover their money from the respondent no.2 by way of decree passed in favour of the respondents no.5 and 9 in the separate Civil Suit.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gajender Singh Nagar) ACJ/ARC (Central) Delhi/01.05.2019 Petition no. SC/32781/16 54/51