Delhi District Court
Smt. Leela Devi (Widow) vs Delhi State on 9 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA: ACJcumCC
cumARC (SOUTHWEST): DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI.
Succession Case No.47/15
Smt. Leela Devi (Widow)
W/o Late Rameesh Sharma
R/o B2/53, B Block,
Gali no. 4 & 5.
Dashrathpuri, New Delhi45.
.............Petitioner
vs.
1. Delhi State.
2. State Bank of India
Through its Manager
C28, C Block, Community Centre
Janakpuri, Near Janak Cinema
New Delhi.
............Respondents
Petition U/s 372 of Indian Succession Act for grant of Succession
Certificate in respect of debts and securities of deceased Sh
Ramesh Sharma.
Date of Institution: 12.10.2015
Date of Judgment: 09.03.2016
JUDGEMENT:
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of Succession certificate U/s 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (herein after referred to as the Act), in respect of debts 1 Smt. Leela Devi vs. Delhi State & Anr.
SC47/15 .
and securities of deceased Ramesh Sharma.
2. Delhi State and State Bank of India Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi have been impleaded as respondents.
3. It has been averred by the petitioner that deceased died intestate on 18.12.14 at Palam, New Delhi. It is further averred that deceased left behind petitioner wife and two minor children namely Sonu and Lalita.
4. Notice of the petition was issued and ordered to be published in the newspaper "Veer Arjun" dated 09.11.15 but none appeared on behalf of public at large, to raise any objection to grant of succession certificate in favour of petitioner.
5. In petitioner evidence, one witness has been examined.
PW1/ petitioner Smt. Leela Devi proved the death certificate of her deceased husband Sh Ramesh Sharma as Ex. PW1/1(OSR). She also proved the copy of Aadhar card and Voter I card of deceased Ramesh Sharma as Ex PW1/2 (OSR) and Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) respectively. She also proved the copy of saving bank account no. 53009839089 of deceased as Ex. PW1/4 (OSR). Witness has further proved copy of her Aadhar card and Voter I card as Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) and Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) respectively. She 2 Smt. Leela Devi vs. Delhi State & Anr.
SC47/15 .
further proved copy of saving bank account no. 31513662611 in her name as Ex. PW1/7 (OSR). She further proved copy of Aadhar card of Sonu S/o of deceased as Ex. PW1/8 and copy of Aadhar card of Lalita daughter of deceased as Ex. PW1/9.
She has deposed that her mother in law Lukhi Devi had expired. She has further deposed that deceased husband died intestate without leaving any Will and besides herself, two minor children namely Sonu (son) and Lalita (daughter) are the class one legal heirs/survivor of belongings of her deceased husband.
Further, in respondent evidence, one witness has been examined.
RW1 is Sh. Murari Lal Customer Assistant, State Bank of India, C1 Janakpuri, New Delhi. He proved computer generated statement of account bearing no. 53009839089 in the name of Ramesh Sharma reflecting balance amount of Rs.10,693/ as on 16.12.15. He also proved the record/ details of Term Deposit receipt (TDR) account no. 63029132641 in the name of Sh. Ramesh Sharma reflecting balance amount of Rs 82,000/ as on 16.12.15 as Ex. RW1/A (colly.).
Thereafter, Petitioner Evidence was closed.
3 Smt. Leela Devi vs. Delhi State & Anr.
SC47/15 .
6. Final arguments were then heard. During final arguments, pertinent query was put to Ld counsel Sh. B.N.Sah with regard to amount of FDR. Upon perusal of statement of RW1 Sh. Murari Lal Customer Assistant, State Bank of India, C1 Janakpuri, New Delhi, it is revealed that amount of Term Deposit receipt (TDR) account no. 63029132641 in the name of Sh. Ramesh Sharma reflects balance amount of Rs 82,000/ as on 16.12.15 whereas in the petition, the amount claimed to be Rs 1,94,000/. To this query, Ld counsel for petitioner concedes that whatever amount is reflecting as per the statement of account produced by RW1, succession certificate may be issued in respect of said amount.
7. 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 timebarred, 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 4 Smt. Leela Devi vs. Delhi State & Anr.
SC47/15 .
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".
8. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, my prima facie findings are as under: 8.1. The deceased was residing at Palam, New Delhi which is reflected from his death certificate proved as Ex.PW1/1(OSR) which falls within the jurisdiction of this court.
8.2. The deceased had expired on 18.12.2014 leaving behind only three surviving class1 legal heirs i.e petitioner and her two minor children.
8.3. The deceased died intestate qua debts and securities as mentioned in the petition which is as follows:
RW1/1 (colly) i.e computer generated statement of account bearing no. 53009839089 in the name of Ramesh Sharma reflecting balance amount of Rs.10,693/ as on 16.12.15 and record/details of Term Deposit receipt (TDR) account no. 63029132641 in the name of Sh. Ramesh Sharma reflecting balance amount of Rs 82,000/ as on 16.12.15.
Therefore, the total value of the securities held by the deceased for which succession certificate has been applied 5 Smt. Leela Devi vs. Delhi State & Anr.
SC47/15 .
for, turns out to be Rs. 92,693/ alongwith interest if any, accrued thereupon.
8.4. The aforesaid claim of the petitioner has gone unrebutted and nobody has appeared on behalf of the public to contest the claim of the petitioner. There is also no impediment U/s 370 of the Act to grant Succession Certificate with respect to debts and securities as mentioned in the application.
9. In view of the aforesaid observations, I hold that the petitioner Smt. Leela Devi is entitled for grant of Succession Certificate U/s 373 of the Act in respect of the aforementioned securities having total value of Rs. 92,693/ alongwith interest if any, accrued thereupon.
10. Accordingly succession certificate be issued to the petitioner Smt. Leela Devi for her share as well as share of her two minor children namely Sonu (son) and Lalita (daughter) i.e 1/3rd each, on filing of corresponding court fees in terms of Article 12 Schedule I of Court Fees Act, 1870 as applicable in Delhi and Indemnitycumsurety bond of the like amount, within 15 days from today.
11. Petitioner Smt. Leela Devi is further directed that share of minor children namely Sonu (son) and Lalita (daughter) may be 6 Smt. Leela Devi vs. Delhi State & Anr.
SC47/15 .
reinvested in their name till they attain the age of majority.
12. Petition is accordingly, disposed of.
13. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Navjeet Budhiraja) today i.e on 09.03.16 ACJ/CC/ARC(SW)/ND 7 Smt. Leela Devi vs. Delhi State & Anr.
SC47/15 .
SC47/15 Smt. Leela Devi vs. Delhi State & Anr.
09.03.16 Present: Ld counsel Sh. B.N.Sah for petitioner.
Final arguments heard.
By virtue of separate Judgment, Succession certificate has been granted to petitioner Smt. Leela Devi for her share as well as share of her two minor children i.e 1/3rd each, on filing of corresponding court fees in terms of Article 12 Schedule I of Court Fees Act, 1870 as applicable in Delhi and Indemnitycumsurety bond of the like amount, within 15 days from today.
Petitioner Smt. Leela Devi is further directed that share of minor children namely Sonu (son) and Lalita (daughter) may be reinvested in their name till they attain the age of majority.
File be consigned to record room.
(Navjeet Budhiraja) ACJ/CC/ARC (SW)/ND 09.03.16 8 Smt. Leela Devi vs. Delhi State & Anr.
SC47/15 .