IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR : LD.
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
Petition No. : SC/32863/16
In the matter of:
Ms. Madhu,
Widow of Late Sh. Pratap Singh,
R/o. 16/518E, Bapa Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
….Petitioner.
Versus
1 The State.
2 State Bank of Hyderabad,
Through its Manager/Principal Officer,
Rasmeccc 2109, First Floor,
Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi5.
…..Respondents.
Date of Institution : 23.08.2014
Date of order when reserved : 20.12.2018
Date of order when announced : 22.12.2018
J U D G M E N T :
1 The present succession petition has been filed by the
petitioner namely Ms. Madhu in respect of service dues left by the
Petition no. SC/32863/16
deceased namely Sh. Pratap Singh, who died intestate on 21.04.2012
at Delhi, claiming that the deceased namely Sh. Pratap Singh was her
husband.
2 After filing of this petition, notice was given to the general
public by way of publication in the newspaper ‘Bande Matram” dated
10.09.2014, but none has appeared from general public to oppose or
contest the present petition.
3 Objections were filed on behalf of Smt. Shobha Devi
wherein it is averred that she being mother of the deceased and his
nominee on record is entitled for all the debts and securities of the
deceased Pratap Singh. It is further averred that the present petition is
liable to be dismissed as Shri Bahadur Singh i.e. father of Late Pratap
Singh is alive and the petitioner with her malafide intention has not
mentioned him as one of the legal heir of the deceased Pratap Singh.
It is averred that petitioner has concealed the material fact that she has
also filed a suit for permanent mandatory injunction alongwith
application U/o. 39 rule 1 2 bearing suit No. 53/2013. It is averred
that deceased son of the objector namely Pratap Singh was unmarried
Petition no. SC/32863/16
and was doing service and he had nominated his mother i.e. Smt.
Shobha Devi as his legal heir in his service records. It is averred that
the petitioner on the basis of forged and fabricated documents is
alleging herself as wife of the deceased son of the objector. It is
averred that petitioner is alleging that the deceased son of the objector
was having two children from this wedlock, but the petitioner has not
placed on record any documentary proof in this regard. However, the
ration card annexed with the petition, wherein Moti and Yogesh are
mentioned as daughter and son of deceased Pratap Singh and year of
birth of above children is shown as 1990 and 1992 respectively
whereas the date of marriage on the alleged marriage certificate which
is also filed and relied by the petitioner is 12.05.2003, whereas the
date of birth of the deceased Pratap Singh is 18.07.1976.
4 Rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner denying all the
allegations leveled by the respondent, mentioning that she was married
to Late Sh. Pratap Singh. It is further averred that at the time of
marriage, she was a widow having a son and daughter. It is averred
that these children were also called by their nick name. It is averred
Petition no. SC/32863/16
that petitioner being heir in classI as per the Hindu Succession Act is
entitled for grant of Succession Certificate being a widow of the
deceased as per the schedule of legal heirs. It is averred that the
alleged nomination filed by Late Pratap Singh is much prior to the
marriage of the petitioner. It is averred that after marriage, she being
classI heir is entitled for the benefits falling into her share. It is
averred that Bahadur Singh is one of the legal heir of Late Sh. Pratap
Singh, but Sh. Bahadur Singh is not the classI legal heir, hence he is
not entitled to benefits under the succession act during the life time of
classI heirs. It is averred that she is the legally wedded wife of the
deceased and the name of the petitioner was also updated in ration
card which is placed on record. It is averred that deceased Late Sh.
Pratap Singh married to her on 12.05.2003 and son and daughter
namely Sonu and Preeti were also adopted and deceased had given
them full accord, love and affection.
5 Written statement filed on behalf of Respondent no. 2 i.e.
State Bank of Hyderabad wherein it is averred that the funds of the
deceased Pratap Singh are available with State Bank of Hyderabad. It
Petition no. SC/32863/16
is averred that petitioner has also filed a suit for Permanent and
Mandatory Injunction against them and Smt. Shobha Devi. Wherein it
she prayed for directions against them to release the funds of the
deceased Pratap Singh in favour of the petitioner herein and also
against the mother of the deceased. It is averred that the deceased
Pratap Singh died intestate leaving behind Ms. Madhu (Wife) i.e. the
petitioner herein, Smt. Shobha Devi (Mother), Ms. Preeti (Daughter)
and Mr. Sonu (Son) as his only legal heirs. It is further averred that
petitioner has alleged that she got married to Sh. Pratap Singh on
12.05.2003 at Delhi, however, as per the documents placed on judicial
record by the petitioner, at the time of her alleged marriage with Sh.
Partap Singh, the age of her son and daughter would be 11 years and
13 years respectively. Even the FormF dated 03.08.2001 (Nomination
Form) submitted by the petitioner in the civil suit was a forged and
fabricated documents. It is further averred that even the date of
marriage stated in the alleged FormF is not correct as per documents
placed on record by the petitioner. It is averred that in suit no. 53/13
titled Ms. Madhu Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad another, the mother
Petition no. SC/32863/16
of the deceased has also taken a specific defense and had stated that
her son Partap Singh was unmarried and petitioner herein/Plaintiff in
the said suit is stranger to her and is claiming herself to be the wife of
the deceased on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and on
the basis of the documents and material placed on record the Court
declined the interim relief. It is averred that all the documents
submitted by the petitioner on record and with the department for the
release of the funds of the deceased are selfcontradictory and creates
a suspicion whether the petitioner is the widow of the deceased or not
and the son and daughter mentioned herein above are the heirs of the
deceased. It is further averred that as per record of the employer of the
deceased, the deceased was bachelor/unmarried. It is averred that as
per the nomination (FormF) which was filed by the deceased during
his life time, his mother is the nominee and thus only she is entitled to
all the funds of the deceased.
6 In order to substantiate her case, the petitioner examined
two witnesses. Petitioner Smt. Madhu examined herself as PW1.
Petitioner deposed that the deceased Pratap Singh was in continuous
Petition no. SC/32863/16
services with State Bank of Hyderabad and was permanent resident of
16/518E, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and during his service
he died on 21.04.2012 and his death certificate is Ex. PW1/1. It is
stated that the deceased Pratap Singh got married with her on
12.05.2003 in Delhi, hence she is entitled to take benefit of her
deceased husband’s assets. She exhibited the copy of her marriage
certificate as PW1/2. She marked her marriage photographs as Mark
A. It is stated that Pratap Singh had died on 21.04.2012 intestate
leaving behind Ms. Madhu (Wife), Smt. Shobha Devi (Mother), Preeti
(Daughter) and Sonu (Son). It is stated that the deceased Late Sh.
Pratap Singh married with the petitioner on 12.05.2003. It is stated
that the petitioner was widow before the marriage with Partap Singh
and was having son and daughter namely Sonu and Preeti. It is stated
that after her marriage with Partap Singh, he had adopted the children
and treated them to be his own child and deceased had given them full
accord, love and affection. It is stated that the deceased had always
considered Sonu and Preeti as his own son and daughter. She
exhibited the copy of her ration card as Ex. PW1/4. It is stated that
Petition no. SC/32863/16
the name of the children were added in the ration card, copy of
rectification slip is Ex. PW1/5. It is stated that there is no other
surviving legal heir of the deceased except his mother and wife
mentioned above at (a) to (d) of Para3, who are the only surviving
legal heirs and therefore entitled to claim all the terminal
benefits/Death benefits etc. It is stated that Smt. Madhu is widow of
deceased Pratap Singh. It is stated that she being heir in classI as per
the Hindu Succession Act is entitled for the grant of Succession
Certificate being a widow of the deceased, as per the schedule. In her
cross examination, it is admitted by her that she has signed as Madhu
in all documents of pleadings. It is also accepted by her that Ex. PW
1/2 I.e the marriage certificate does not bear her signatures. It is
voluntarily stated by her that the same is bearing her thumb
impression. It is accepted that earlier she filed a suit which was later
on withdrawn by her. She admitted the certified copy of the same
which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/R1. She also admitted certain
documents filed in that suit as PW1/R2 (collectively). It is accepted
that she submitted form F in the bank. It is stated by her that said form
Petition no. SC/32863/16
was handed over to her by her husband. Certified copy of the said
form exhibited as Ex. PW1/R3. She admitted that Ex. PW1/R3
bears her handwriting at point A, it is again stated by her that it is not
her handwriting. It is stated that no documents were executed to adopt
the children. She admitted that she had wrongly mentioned in the
earlier petition that the children were born out of the wedlock of
herself and the deceased. It is stated that the deceased was about 34
years of age. It is accepted by her that she filed documents Ex. PW
1/R3 in the earlier suit. It is stated by her that deceased Pratap Singh
had adopted Preeti and Sonu after her marriage. It is stated the
documents in respect of the adoption was executed. It is stated she has
not filed the said documents in the court file.
7 PW2 Sh. Dilip Jha, Clerk from “Gupta Associates”,
submitted that he has been authorised by Appointment Letter dated
13.11.2000, Ex. PW2/1 (OSR). It is stated that he has brought the
affidavits of Madhu and Pratap Singh the same are Ex. PW2/2 to Ex.
PW2/5. He has brought the copy of death certificate of previous
husband of Madhu which is marked as Mark A. He has filed the
Petition no. SC/32863/16
marriage register with regard to marriage of Madhu and Pratap Singh
solemnized at Radha Krishan Mandir as Ex. PW2/6. He has also
brought the marriage certificate of Madhu and Pratap Singh, the copy
of the same is Ex PW2/7. It is stated that as per record, the marriage
of Madhu and Pratap Singh was solemnized on 12.05.2003. In his
cross examination, it is accepted by him that he was not an employee
of Radha Krishan Mandir at any point of time. It is admitted he has
no personal knowledge about the marriage of Madhu and Pratap
Singh. It is accepted that on Ex. PW2/2 word “widow” have been
corrected, but there are no initials near the word. It is accpeted by him
that he has not brought any record that he has been authorised by Sh.
Mukti Nath Peeth Vaid Vidayalay or any authorisation letter from
“M/s. Gupta and Associates” It is accepted by him that there is no
identify proof of the parties in the documents brought my him. It is
denied by him that the document brought by him are fabricated and
manipulated.
8 No other petitioner’s witnesses examined and PE is closed.
Petition no. SC/32863/16
9 OW1 Smt. Shobha Devi deposed that her deceased son
namely Pratap Singh was unmarried. He was doing service and had
nominated her as his legal heir in his service records. It is stated that
petitioner on the basis of forged and fabricated documents is alleging
herself as wife of the deceased and the petitioner is also falsely
alleging that the deceased was having children from this wedlock. It
is stated that the ration card, Aadhaar Card, photographs and marriage
certificate filed by the petitioner are forged and fabricated documents.
It is stated that the ration card filed on record with the present petition
wherein Moti and Yogesh are mentioned as daughter and son of
deceased Pratap Singh and year of birth of above children is shown as
1990 and 1992 respectively. It is stated that the alleged marriage
certificate which has also been relied by the petitioner is also forged
and fabricated. It is alleged that the date of marriage of the petitioner
with Pratap Singh is 12.05.2003 whereas the date of birth of the
deceased Pratap Singh is 18.07.1976. It is stated that the
documents/certified copies are on record and are already exhibited as
Ex. PW-1/R-1 to Ex. PW-1/R-3 i.e. certified copies of order dated
Petition no. SC/32863/16
11.12.2013, plaint bearing suit no. S-53/2013, written statement filed
by State Bank of Hyderabad (Respondent no.1), Written statement
filed by her, replication, letter of settlement of terminal benefits of
Late Pratap Singh dated 27.12.2012, legal notice dated 09.01.2013
issued on behalf of petitioner to the bank, reply dated 14.01.2013 by
bank, letter dated 31.01.2013 issued by Sh. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate,
letter issued by State Bank of Hyderabad to the counsel for petitioner
dated 13.02.2013, Form F (nomination form) filed by the petitioner,
Form of nomination in the name of mother Smt. Shobha Devi. It is
stated that there was no relation of husband and wife between
petitioner and the deceased as such petitioner is not entitled to inherit
the service benefits i.e. funds, gratuity, provident fund, members
contribution, bank’s contribution etc. from the employer of the
deceased. It is stated that she is the real mother and nominee of the
deceased Pratap Singh, hence, she is entitled for all the claims and
service benefits of her deceased son from his employer. In her cross
examination, it is stated by her that deceased Pratap Singh was
residing with her at D793, Mangol Puri, Delhi, however it is
voluntarily stated by her that he used to off and on visit her. It is
Petition no. SC/32863/16
stated that she is not in possession of any ration, card, Aadhar card or
voter card of the deceased of the address D793. The witness identify
the deceased in photograph Ex. OW1/P1 to Ex. OW1/P5. It was
objected by the counsel for the objector that documents Ex. OW1/P1
to Ex. OW1/P5 are the copies of the certified copies. It is stated by
her that she has not in possession of any Aadhaar Card and Voter I.D.
Card of the deceased. She cannot admit, or deny, if the deceased was
born in 1967.
10 No other witness examined. Objector’s/respondent’s
evidence closed.
11 Separate statements of Mr. Sonu @ Yogesh and Ms. Preeti
have been recorded with regard to their no objections to grant of
Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner Smt. Madhu.
12 The court heard the arguments advanced by the Ld.
Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Contention
of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the widow
of the deceased and Mr. Sonu @ Yogesh and Priti are the adopted
children of the deceased. It is argued that petitioner is the class one
Petition no. SC/32863/16
legal heir of the deceased. hence, she will take alongwith other first
class legal heirs the service benefits of the deceased to the exclusion of
all others. It is contended that voter I card, marriage certificate,
photographs and ration card of the deceased and the petitioner have
been filed on record to prove their marriage. It is stated that record of
marriage was called from the authorised Advocate as the temple where
the marriage was performed has been closed. It is stated that children
of the petitioner were impliedly adopted by the deceased, however no
deed was made qua adoption. It is contended that deceased performed
rituals as father in the marriage of Priti. It is contended that ration
card of 2005 of the same address where the deceased had died is on
record showing petitioner to be his wife. It is contended that nominee
can not become absolute owner.
13 Per contra, it is argued on behalf of the objectors that the
factum of marriage between deceased and petitioner has not been
proved on record. Furthermore, Master Sonu @ Yogesh and Priti are
not the biological or adopted children of the deceased. It is contended
that no witness of the alleged marriage between petitioner and the
Petition no. SC/32863/16
deceased has been examined in the court. It is contended that in the
earlier civil suit, the present petitioner has filed forged nomination
form. It is contended that in the previous suit filed by the petitioner
she did not implead the children as party.
14 It is no longer res integra that succession petitions are to be
decided summarily. Sec. 373 of the Indian Succession Act provides
that a succession petition is to be decided in a summary manner and
even if court cannot decide the right to the certificate without
determining questions of law or fact which may seem to be too
complicated and difficult for determination in a summary proceedings,
the Court may nevertheless grant a certificate to a person if he appears
to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. Thus U/s.
373 of Indian Succession Act, only prima facie case is to be seen and
other questions of law and fact which may be complicated are to be
decided by a regular civil court.
In the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and
others, Appellants Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and
others, Respondents. AIR 2000 Supreme Court 23012000 AIR
Petition no. SC/32863/16
SCW 2432 it was held that “subsec. (3) of S. 373 of Succession Act
which deals with procedure for grant of certificate reveals two things,
first adjudication for grant of certificate is summary proceedings and
secondly if the question of law and fact are intricate or difficult, it
could still grant the said certificate based on applicants prima facie
title. In other words the grant of certificate under it is only a
determination of prima facie title. This as a necessary corollary
confirms that it is not a final decision between the parties. So, it
cannot be construed that mere grant of such certificate or a decision
in such proceeding would constitute to be decision on an issue finally
decided between the parties. If that be so the principle of res judicata
cannot be made applicable.”
15 In the present petition, it is admitted fact that objector Smt.
Shobha Devi is the mother of the deceased. The contentious point in
the present matter whether the petitioner is the wife of the deceased of
whether children namely Master Sonu @ Yogesh and Priti are the
adopted children of the deceased or not.
STATUS OF SMT. MADHU
16 It is contended by Smt. Madhu that she was a widow with
two children at the time of her marriage with the deceased on
12.05.2003. In order to prove her marriage, she examined PW2, who
Petition no. SC/32863/16
brought the register of marriage performed at Radha Krishan Temple.
The following facts shows that the marriage certificate filed by the
petitioner is not reliable :
(i) No one came from the alleged temple to prove the marriage
certificate, or performance of marriage, or marriage registration in
their temple, rather one Clerk of a counsel came before the Court to
depose about the same. It is to be noted that PW2 Sh. Dilip Jha,
Clerk of the counsel was not having any authority letter in his favour
to appear before this Court, or to depose about the document in
question, however he has shows a letter written by one Pandit Govind
Sharma, Secretary, Sri Muktinath Peeth Education Trust (Regd.) to
M/s Gupta Associates to keep the records pertaining to functioning
of marriage solemnized at Sri Radha Krishan Mandir. There is
nothing on record to show that Pandit Govind Sharma is/was Secretary
of Sri Muktinath Peeth Education Trust (Regd.), hence veracity of this
letter is doubtful. The source from where these documents of
marriage came raises a doubt qua genuineness of these documents.
Thus, it is not safe to rely on these documents in absence of any proof
Petition no. SC/32863/16
of performance of marriage between the petitioner and deceased.
Further, no witness of performance of the said marriage has been
examined before the Court to prove the factum of said marriage. No
effort has been made to prove signatures of deceased, Sh. Pratap Singh
on the document of marriage, or on his affidavit. The alleged Notary
who attested the affidavit of deceased has not been examined in the
Court. In these circumstances, the undersigned hereby held that the
documents of marriage produced by the petitioner are not reliable.
Thus, the factum of marriage between the petitioner and the deceased
allegedly held on 12.05.2003 at Sri Radha Krishan Mandir appears to
be not proved.
17 However, there are various photographs of the petitioner
and deceased on record which shows that they were having close/
intimate relation with each other. In photographs they appear as
couple. Involvement of deceased in the marriage of the daughter of the
petitioner is also apparent. There is Ration Card of the petitioner on
record issued on 28.09.2005 wherein name of her husband has been
written as Sh. Pratap Singh i.e. deceased. The deceased has also
Petition no. SC/32863/16
shown as one of the family member in the Ration Card. Further,
Aadhaar Card of deceased also filed on record wherein name of wife
has been written as Smt. Madhu. The deceased has died on
21.04.2012. There are documents on record since 2005 showing the
deceased as husband of the petitioner. Even in the death certificate of
deceased, the address where he was residing with the petitioner has
been mentioned as his residential address. In these circumstances, it
appears that there was a long cohabitation between the petitioner and
deceased since 2005 till the death of Sh. Pratap Singh (deceased).
This long cohabitation raises a presumption of marriage between the
two. In these circumstances, though the marriage certificate and the
factum of solemnization of marriage has not been proved on record,
however due to long cohabitation a presumption arises that the
deceased and the petitioner were married. Reliance being placed upon
judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Badri
Prasad Vs. Dy. Director of Coordination Ors. AIR 1978 SC
1557. Thus, it is held that the petitioner is widow of deceased.
Petition no. SC/32863/16
STATUS OF CHILDREN OF THE PETITIONER SMT.
MADHU NAMELY MS. PREETI AND MR. SONU @ YOGESH
17 It is contended by the petitioner that at the time of her
marriage with the deceased she was having two children namely Ms.
Preeti and Mr. Sonu. It is also stated that after her marriage, the said
children were (impliedly) adopted by the deceased. Though, it is
stated that there is a document of adoption, however no such
document has been filed on record. At this juncture, it is also to be
noted that in the previous Civil Suit filed by the petitioner against
State Bank of Hyderabad and Smt. Shobha Devi (mother of deceased),
it was claimed by the petitioner that Ms. Preeti and Mr. Sonu were the
biological children of deceased. This fact has also been admitted by
petitioner in her crossexamination, however, in the present petition,
she has changed her stance and has claimed that the said children were
impliedly adopted by the deceased.
18 It is to be noted that there cannot be an implied adoption.
An adoption has to be as per the provisions of Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act which provides provisions for giving and taking a
Petition no. SC/32863/16
child in adoption. Further, a adoption can be done only as per the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. In the present matter, the
petitioner has herself stated that the deceased was 34 years of age at
the time of his death i.e. 21.04.2012. It was stated by the mother of
deceased that date of birth of deceased was 18.07.1976. Though in the
Ration Card filed by the petitioner year of birth of deceased is shown
to be 1967, however the same appears to be a clerical error as in the
alleged marriage certificate proved on record on behalf of petitioner
which can be used against her, date of birth of deceased has been
shown to be 18.07.1976. Even in the alleged affidavit of deceased
filed by the petitioner, date of birth of deceased is shown to be
18.07.1976. It is to be noted that in the School Leaving Certificate of
deceased his date of birth has been mentioned as 18.07.1976. The
same date of birth was mentioned in the letter of confirmation to him
in the service. Thus, it is established that date of birth of deceased is
18.07.1976.
19 As per record date of birth of Ms. Preeti i.e. daughter of the
petitioner is stated to be of the year, 1990, thus, the age difference
Petition no. SC/32863/16
between Ms. Preeti and the deceased was only 14 years, however as
per Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, if a male
adopts a female, than there has to be age difference of 21 years
between them which has not been so in the present matter. Thus, this
alleged adoption was not as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act. It is to be noted that as per Section 5 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, any adoption made after commencement of this Act
which is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall be
void. Thus, any such adoption of Ms. Preeti by the deceased is void,
hence, Preeti can not be held adopted daughter of the deceased.
20 Apparently, due to long cohabitation between the petitioner
and deceased, it was assumed by the petitioner that her children have
became adopted children of their stepfather namely Sh. Pratap Singh
and they started writing so in various documents. As per Section 11
(vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, a child to be
adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents.
In the present matter, the petitioner has not proved on record, if any
such act of giving in adoption was done. Without performing this
Petition no. SC/32863/16
actual act of giving in adoption, the petitioner cannot raise a
presumption of implied adoption. In these circumstances, Mr. Sonu @
Yogesh is also cannot be held as adopted son of the deceased. He is at
best stepson of the deceased.
21 In view of the aforesaid discussion, neither Ms. Preeti, nor
Mr. Sonu @ Yogesh can be held to be adopted children of the
deceased, hence they have no shares in the debts and securities left
behind by the deceased.
SHARE OF THE PETITIONER AND SMT. SHOBHA DEVI
(MOTHER OF DECEASED)
21 Since deceased has left behind only two ClassI legal heirs
i.e. widow Ms. Madhu (the petitioner) and his mother Smt. Shobha
Devi, hence both are entitled to equal share in the debts and securities
of the deceased. It is hereby held that succession certificate is granted
to the petitioner Ms. Madhu and mother of the deceased Smt. Shobha
to the extent of equal shares in the debts and securities of the deceased
Sh. Pratap Singh in respect of service dues amounting to
Rs.1,38,014/. Succession certificate accordingly granted. Succession
Petition no. SC/32863/16
certificate be drawn on deposit of total requisite court fee of Rs.3,450/
on furnishing an Indemnity Bond with one surety within 15 days.
So far as the family pension is concerned, the undersigned is of the
view that the right to family pension after the death of deceased, could
not have been subject matter of the proceedings for grant of
Succession Certificate in as much as the family pension would not be
an estate left behind by the deceased. Reliance being placed on the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled as Deputy Director
(Horticulture) Vs. Premwati Ors. (delivered by Hon’ble Mr.
Justice R.K. Gauba) (order dated 19.04.2018) (C.R.P. No. 85/2017
Digitally
CM Nos. 1303132/17). signed by
GAJENDER
GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
SINGH Date:
NAGAR
File be consigned to Record Room. 2018.12.22
23:01:57
+0530
Announced in the open court (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR )
on 22.12.2018 Administrative Civil Judgecum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi.
THIS JUDGMENT CONTAINS 24 PAGES
Petition no. SC/32863/16
SC/32863/16
20.12.2018
Present : None.
Vide separate judgment of even date, it is held that there is
primafacie no impediment for grant of Succession Certificate in
granted in favour of petitioner Ms. Madhu and mother of the deceased
Smt. Shobha to the extent of equal shares in the debts and securities of
the deceased Sh. Pratap Singh in respect of service dues amounting to
Rs.1,38,014/. Succession certificate accordingly granted. Succession
certificate be drawn on deposit of total requisite court fee of Rs.3,450/
on furnishing an Indemnity Bond with one surety within 15 days.
So far as the family pension is concerned, the undersigned is of the
view that the right to family pension after the death of deceased, could
not have been subject matter of the proceedings for grant of
Succession Certificate in as much as the family pension would not be
an estate left behind by the deceased. Reliance being placed on the
Petition no. SC/32863/16
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled as Deputy Director
(Horticulture) Vs. Premwati Ors. (delivered by Hon’ble Mr.
Justice R.K. Gauba) (order dated 19.04.2018) (C.R.P. No. 85/2017
CM Nos. 1303132/17).
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gajender Singh Nagar)
ACJ/ARC (Central)
Delhi/22.12.2018
Petition no. SC/32863/16