Delhi District Court
Prem vs The State on 15 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF ACJ/CCJ/ARC (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY SH. VISHAL PAHUJA
SC No. 129/18
1. Prem
W/o Late Sh. Shiv Dayal
2. Master Vinod Kumar
3. Baby Bhoomi
4. Master Kushal
Children of Late Sh. Shiv Dayal
All R/o House No-42, Chanchal Park,
Satyam Vihar, Bakkarwala, Delhi-110041.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Limited
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.
3. Ms. Shanti Devi
W/o Sh. Sita Ram
House No. E-319, MCD Colony,
Azad Pur, Delhi-110033.
...... Respondents
Date of Institution : 18.09.2018
Date of reserving Judgment : 15.11.2019
Date of decision : 15.11.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The present succession petition has been filed under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') by Smt. Prem for herself as well as on SC No. 129/18 Page no. 1 of 6 Prem Vs. State behalf of Master Vinod Kumar, Baby Bhoomi and Master Kushal (hereinafter, referred to as 'the petitioners') W/o Late Sh. Shiv Dayal (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 18.09.2018. Notice of the petition was issued to the general public by way of publication which was served on 29.01.2019 through 'Veer Arjun'. None from the general public filed any objections.
3. Respondent no. 3 Ms. Shanti Devi (sister of the deceased) has filed her affidavit qua no objection for grant of succession certificate to the petitioner.
4. Written statement on behalf of respondent no. 2 was filed in which they specify the amount given to the family of the deceased. Reply/information of status dues of deceased was filed on behalf of DVB ETBF-2002 (Pension Trust) which contains Family Pension, Arrears of Family Pension, Gratuity, GPF, EDLIS and Leave Encashment amount.
5. Statement of PW- 1 Smt. Prem/the petitioner was recorded on 11.04.2019 who stated that she is the wife of deceased Late Sh. Shiv Dayal who expired on 13.06.2018. She further stated that deceased Late Sh. Shiv Dayal has left behind the petitioner, his two minor sons and one minor daughter as the only surviving Class-I legal heirs. She also deposed that there is no other Class-I legal heir except them. She also stated that deceased Late Sh. Shiv Dayal had not executed any Will during SC No. 129/18 Page no. 2 of 6 Prem Vs. State his life time. No other witness was examined by the petitioner and on 30.09.2019 petitioner's evidence was closed.
6. Final arguments were addressed today. I have heard the arguments and perused the material on record carefully.
7. 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-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".
8. By way of the evidence led, the petitioner has proved her averments and documents relied upon. No impediment Under Section 370 of Act has come to light which restricts the grant of certificate to the petitioners. Respondent SC No. 129/18 Page no. 3 of 6 Prem Vs. State no. 3 Ms. Shanti Devi (sister of the deceased) has filed her affidavit qua no objection for grant of succession certificate to the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to the debts and securities of the deceased, as per WS filed by the respondent no. 2 except the amount mentioned by DVB ETBF- 2002 (Pension Trust).
9. The Court accordingly directs that succession certificate be issued in the name of petitioners Smt. Prem, Master Vinod Kumar (minor), Baby Bhoomi (minor) and Master Kushal (minor) in respect of debts and securities of the deceased, as per WS filed by the respondent no. 2 except the pension amount.
As in Smt. Violet Issaac And Ors Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 725, it was held as under:
"4 (d). The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus, no other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension. The Family Pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee has no title to it. The employee has no control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it. The family pension scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed by the Railway administration to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee. Since, the Rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee SC No. 129/18 Page no. 4 of 6 Prem Vs. State during his lifetime for the payment of family pension, he has no title to the same. Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition.
"5. In Jodh Singh v. Union of India, this Court on an elaborate discussion held that family pension is admissible on account of the status of a widow and not on account of the fact that there was some estate of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow. The court observed:
"Where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status and a status that is acquired on the happening of certain event, namely, on becoming a widow on the death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the estate of the deceased. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject matter of testamentary disposition."
The court further held that what was not payable during the lifetime of the deceased over which he had no power of disposition could not form part of his estate. Since the qualifying event occurs on the death of the deceased for the payment of family pension, monetary benefit of family pension cannot form part of the estate of the deceased entitling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition".
10. Reliance is also placed upon Nitu Vs. Sheela Rani & Ors. In (2016) 16 Supreme Court Cases 229 and Deputy Director (Horticulture) vs. Premwati & Ors, D.O.D- 19.04.2018, CRP No. 85/2017, & CM Nos. 13031-32/17
11. Thus, as family pension does not fall under the definition of estate which could have been disposed off by the deceased during his life-time by way of testamentary dis- position, it would not be covered U/s 372 of the Act.
SC No. 129/18 Page no. 5 of 6
Prem Vs. State
12. Further, it is ordered that petitioners are granted 1/4th share each of debts and securities of the deceased and share of minors i.e. petitioner no. 2 Master Vinod Kumar (minor), petitioner no. 3 Baby Bhoomi (minor) and petitioner no. 4 Master Kushal (minor) be deposited in the form of fixed deposits in a Nationalized bank and the same be released to the minors after they attains majority except the pension amount.
13. Court fees and indemnity bond with one surety be filed by the petitioner within 15 days.
14. No further order is required to be passed. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed by VISHALVISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date:
2019.11.15 15:17:33 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA) COURT ON 15th DAY OF ACJ/CCJ/ARC NOVEMBER, 2019 (WEST)/DELHI This Judgment contains Six pages and each page has been signed by me. Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date:
2019.11.15 15:17:40 +0530 (VISHAL PAHUJA) ACJ/CCJ/ARC (WEST)/DELHI SC No. 129/18 Page no. 6 of 6 Prem Vs. State