SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ms. Madhu vs 2 State Bank Of Hyderabad on 22 December, 2018

 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                                       

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation