Skip to content


Amina and ors. (Smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2796 of 2003
Judge
Reported inRLW2004(1)Raj544; 2004(5)WLC18
ActsSuccession Act, 1925 - Sections 372
AppellantAmina and ors. (Smt.)
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
Appellant Advocate Chaitanya Gehlot, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateNon present
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredMst. Shib Dei v. Munshi Ajudhya Pershad and Ors.
Excerpt:
- industrial disputes act, 1947. section 2(s): [m.s. shah, sharad d. dave & k.s. jhaveri,jj] workman part time employees held, part time employees are not excluded from the definition of workman in section 2(s) merely on the ground that they are part time employees. the ex abundante cautela use of the words either whole time or part time by the legislature in the definition of working journalist in the working journalists and other newspaper employees (conditions of service and miscellaneous provisions) act, 1955, does not mean that the definition of workman in the prior act i.e. industrial disputes act, 1947 intended to exclude part-time employees from the definition of workman. the expression part time has nothing to do with the nature of appointment, but it only regulates the..........held that in the case where the petitioners are entitled to the amount as of right and there is no dispute on that point and if all the petitioners are major one, the condition of depositing the amount in fdr for 20 years is unreasonable and is liable to be set aside.7. for the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and impugned part of the judgment dtd. 26.7.2000 (annex.1) passed by the learned distt. judge, churu by which the learned distt. judge ordered that the amount of rs. 5,00,000/- be deposited in fdr in the names of petitioner for 20 years is liable to be set aside.accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the impugned part of the judgment dtd. 26.7.2000 (annex. 1) passed by the learned distt. judge, churu, by which the learned distt. judge.....
Judgment:

Garg, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari/mandamus, the impugned part of the judgment dtd. 26.7.2000 passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Churu while granting succession certificate in favour of the petitioners under Section 372 of the India Succession Act, 1925 for a sum of Rs. 5,46,393/-, further ordered that out of the amount of Rs. 5,46,393/-, Rs. 5,00,000/- be deposited in FOR in the names of petitioners for 20 years, be declared illegal and ineffective qua the petitioners.

2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioners are as under:-

i) That late Sh. Nanu Alladeen Teli (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was husband of petitioner No. 1 Smt. Amina and father of petitioners No. 2 and 3 Ms. Shaheeda and Ms. Rasheeda (both are major) who went abroad to earn his livelihood and for that purpose, he was working in the Sultanat of Oman where he died on 17.7.99 in a road accident and on the death of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 5,46,393/- became payable to the successors of the deceased.

ii) That thereafter an application was filed by the petitioners under Section 372 of the Indian Succession act, 1925 before the Dist. Judge, Churu for getting the abovementioned amount and that application was allowed through judgment dtd. 26.7.2000 (Annex. 1), but while allowing the application, the learned Distt. Judge (respondent No. 2) further imposed the condition as referred to above and this part of order has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

3. In this writ petition, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned part of the order whereby amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was ordered to be deposited in FDR in the names of petitioners for 20 years is without jurisdiction and should be set aside especially when the petitioners No. 2 and 3 (Ms. Shaheeda and Ms. Rasheeda) are major one and are of marriageable age and if that amount is allowed to be deposited in FDR for 20 years, they would be deprived of that amount at the time, when that amount is needed.

4. Heard.

5. In my opinion, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be appreciable one and the impugned part of the order by which the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was ordered to be deposited in FDR in the names of petitioners appears to be unreasonable and should be set aside especially when the petitioners are entitled to that amount as of right and are all major one. In coming to this conclusion, the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Mst. Shib Dei v. Munshi Ajudhya Pershad and Ors. (1), may be referred to wherein the Allahabad High Court held that the order by which money was ordered to be deposited in the Bank was found ultra vires. This Court is also in full agreement with the view expressed in the case of Mst. Shib Dei (supra).

6. Thus, it is held that in the case where the petitioners are entitled to the amount as of right and there is no dispute on that point and if all the petitioners are major one, the condition of depositing the amount in FDR for 20 years is unreasonable and is liable to be set aside.

7. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and impugned part of the judgment dtd. 26.7.2000 (Annex.1) passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Churu by which the learned Distt. Judge ordered that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- be deposited in FDR in the names of petitioner for 20 years is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the impugned part of the judgment dtd. 26.7.2000 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Churu, by which the learned Distt. Judge ordered that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- be deposited in FDR in the names of petitioners for 20 years is quashed and set aside and the judgment dtd. 26.7.2000 (Annex. 1) passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Churu stands modified to this extent and the amount in question be paid to the petitioners as per their share.

No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //