Dismissed

Smt. Ragini Srivastava and Ors. v. Smt. Aneeta Srivastava and Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024FAPL/3/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the first appeal challenging an order in a succession certificate application. The court held that the appeal was infructuous as terminal dues and family pension had been paid to the appellants, rendering the challenge to the Will regarding property distinct from the claimed terminal dues.

What did the court decide?

The first appeal is dismissed.

Smt. Ragini Srivastava and Ors. Vs Smt. Aneeta… — Succession and Inheritance | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81018

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 3 of 2020

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Ragini Srivastava And Ors. Respondent :- Smt. Aneeta Srivastava And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Ali Counsel for Respondent :- Aniveksha Shukla,Ashish Chaturvedi

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Ashish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶7

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.08.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Raebareli in Succession Cases bearing M.N.R. No.217 of 2008 (Smt. Aneeta Vs. Harkhas Aam) along with M.N.R. No.242 of 2008 (Smt. Ragini Srivastava Vs. Harkhas Aam), by means of which the application for succession certificate filed by the appellant No.1 and respondent No.1 have been consigned to record on the ground that issue of evidence is involved in the case, which can be got determined from the competent civil court, on the ground that the appellant No. 1 is claiming as wife of the deceased and the respondent No.1 on the basis of Will.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this appeal is not maintainable because the civil suit challenging the Will in favour of the respondent No.1, bearing Regular Suit No.1230/2008, has already been filed by the appellants and the same is pending before the Civil Court.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute the same, and on a query being put, he submits that all the deathcum- terminal dues have been paid to the appellant No.1 and she is also being paid family pension in compliance of the order dated 31.05.2023, passed in Writ-A No.15557 of 2018 (Smt. Ragini Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others) and her son has also been given appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father.

¶10

The application for Succession Certificate was filed claiming the terminal dues, i.e. the amount of G.P.F., Leave Encashment,

¶11

Group Insurance and Gratuity and admittedly the same have been paid to the appellants in compliance of the order passed by this Court and in regard to the moveable and immovable property of the deceased, her husband had executed a Will in favour of the respondent No.1 on 09.04.2004, which has been challenged by the appellant before the competent civil court.

¶12

In view of the above, challenge to the impugned order is misconceived and not tenable for the reason that no cause of action survives to the appellants in regards to the terminal dues of the deceased as they have been paid and this appeal has rendered infructuous.

¶13

The first appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 ML/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Ragini Srivastava and Ors. v. Smt. Aneeta Srivastava and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ragini Srivastava and Ors. v. Smt. Aneeta Srivastava and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Awadhesh Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Manokamini Shukla and Others

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Its Manager Vs Smt. Meena Dubey and Others

Awadhesh Kumar Singh vs Smt. Manokamini Shukla and Others

Union of India Throu.General Manager Northern Railway N.Delh Vs Mohd. Mansoor Alam and Another

Rajendra and Another Vs Ram Sumer and Another

Engineer in Chief Public Works Deptt. Lucknow and Ors. vs M/S Siddharth Constructions - M/S Jagdish Saran Jv Thru Authorized Signatory Saurabh Kumar and Ors.