Parjinder Kaur Vs. Narendra Singh and anr - Court Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1152/2010 Parjinder Kaur Vs. Narendra Singh & Ors. Date of Order : September 3, 2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA, J.

Mr. V.K. Aggarwal, for the appellant. Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Anil Joshi, for the respondents. ***** The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ( for short, referred to as the `Act of 1925') against the impugned order dated 08.7.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondents filed an application under Section 372 of the Act of 1925, before the learned Court below for issuance of Succession Certificate in their favour, with respect to the deposits and securities of the deceased Jarnail Singh, lying in HDFC Bank, Keshrisinghpur, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, amounting to Rs. 6 lacs with interest, having account No. 111601000030773. 2 The learned District Judge, after issuance of public notification allowed the application submitted by the respondents and issued Succession Certificate in their names. Being aggrieved from the said order, the appellant filed an application under Section 383 of the Act of 1925 for rescinding the earlier order, made by the Court below dated 08.7.2009, but the efforts made by the appellant proved to be abortive and her said application was rejected by the learned Court below. Learned counsel Mr. V.K. Aggarwal has argued that appellant is a real daughter of the deceased Jarnail Singh and the respondents are distant relatives of the deceased, however, while approaching the learned Court below for issuance of Succession Certificate, respondents have not impleaded her as party, and as such, no notice was issued by the learned Court below inviting her objections on issuance of Succession Certificate in their favour. Learned counsel would urge that there is no whisper in the application under Section 372, laid by the respondents that appellant is near relative of the deceased, whereas this fact ought to have been incorporated in the application. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has 3 argued that the entire proceedings undertaken by the learned Court below are contrary to the law and the prescribed procedure, therefore, order impugned cannot be sustained. Mr. Aggarwal further submits that even the recitals contained in the application are not in conformity with the requirements envisaged under Section 372 of the Act of 1925, and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the subsequent order whereby her prayer for rescinding the issuance of Succession Certificate was rejected is also liable to be reversed. Per contra, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Thanvi submits that the learned Court below has issued a public notice before issuance of the Succession Certificate, and the same was published in the newspaper. He further submits that despite publication of the notice, no objections were submitted on behalf of the appellant, and therefore, in this circumstance the learned District Judge has rightly issued the Succession Certificate in favour of respondents. Learned Sr. Counsel would urge that there is no infirmity much less legal infirmity in both the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, in my considered opinion, a very vital fact, that the appellant is a real daughter of the 4 deceased Jarnail Singh, was not mentioned in the application filed for issuance of Succession Certificate is a patent flaw, which requires appreciation by this Court in the light of law governing the province of issuance of Succession Certificate. In view of the fact that the application itself was not in conformity with the requirements envisaged under Section 372 of the Act of 1925, the order impugned cannot be sustained and the order whereby the prayer of the appellant for rescinding the certificate too cannot be sustained. Thus, in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below dated 08.7.2009 and the order dated 17.8.2009 are hereby annuled. The matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar for deciding the application of the respondents for issuance of the Succession Certificate afresh, after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant strictly in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 03.10.2013. The amount of Rs. 6 lacs along with interest which was lying in the account No. 11160100030773 of the HDFC Bank in the name of deceased was deposited by the Bank before the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, in adherence to order passed by this Court on 22.2.2012, and according to 5 learned counsel for the parties, the said cheque is still lying with the learned trial court. The learned trial Court is directed to redeposit the said amount with the bank, so that the said amount can fetch interest on the same. Taking into account the issue involved in the matter and the fact that the matter is pending since 2009, the learned Court below is directed to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months commencing from 03.10.2013. The appeal is accordingly allowed with the observations made to supra. (P.K. LOHRA), J.

ns.