Partly allowed

Lalita Devi and Anr. v. Om Parkash and Anr.

J&K HC6 Oct 2021MA/508/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an appeal against a succession certificate issued by the District Court via fraud and concealment of pending proceedings. The High Court set aside the impugned order, directing a rehearing to determine rightful heirs and restore benefits, while noting separate remedies for bank transfer disputes.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. The District Court is directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties. Parties appear on 27.10.2021.

Lalita Devi and Anr. Vs Om Parkash and Anr. — Succession and Inheritance | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No.17

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

MA No. 508/2013 IA No. 958/2013

¶4

Lalita Devi and Anr.

¶5

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Anil Biloria, Advocate.

Om Parkash and Anr.

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: None.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER 06.10.2021

¶13

(Open Court)

¶14

This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Succession Certificate Act, 1977 ( hereinafter referred to as the “ Act of 1977 ”) against the judgment and order dated 06.09.2013, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah ( hereinafter referred to as the “ District Court ”), whereby the Succession Certificate dated 06.09.2013 has been issued in favour of Om Parkash-respondent No. 1 herein.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellants states that the Certificate in question had been obtained by the respondent No. 1 by concealing the material facts that he had already filed an application for grant of such a certificate before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh.

¶16

With a view to understand the controversy in question in its correct perspective, it is necessary to give in brief the material facts:-

¶17

MA No. 508/2013

¶18

¶19

Respondent No. 1-Om Parkash filed an application for grant of certificate under the Act before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh. The application was in regard to an amount of ₹ 2, 90, 982/-(Rupees Two Lacs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Two) along with interest lying in the J&K Bank Bank, Branch Gandoh-respondent No. 2 herein, in the name of Amar Devi ( hereinafter referred to as the “ deceased ”). The respondent No. 1 had claimed that he was the nephew of the deceased and was the only surviving legal heir. A certificate issued by the Tehsildar to that extent was used to support and buttress that assertion.

¶20

During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh, an application came to be filed, seeking impleadment in the said proceedings on behalf of the appellant No. 1, namely, Lalita Devi, who claims to be the adopted daughter of the deceased and also figured as a nominee of the deceased in her Bank Account. The appellant No. 1 otherwise was the real daughter of appellant No. 2, namely, Revta Devi, who is the real sister of the deceased.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants urged that upon being confronted with an application for impleadment by the appellant No. 1, the respondent No. 1 with a view to subvert the process of law, decided to file a similar application for grant of the certificate before the District Court.

¶22

At this stage, it may be necessary to reproduce a few dates, which are material for the just disposal of the present case. 18.07.2013 was the date, when the application for impleadment was filed before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh.

¶23

MA No. 508/2013

¶24

¶25

It is stated that the next date fixed in the matter was 30.07.2013. The respondent No. 1 is stated to have filed a fresh application before the learned District Court on 30.07.2013. The certificate came to be granted in favour of respondent No. 1 on 06.09.2013 and the proceedings before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh were withdrawn on 07.11.2013.

¶26

8 In the application filed by the respondent No. 1 before the District Court, the applicant appears to have concealed the fact that he had filed an application for grant of such certificate, which was pending before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh.

¶27

Ordinarily, while the applications for grant of certificate in terms of the Act of 1977 are to be filed before the learned District Judge of the concerned district, however, in terms of Section 26 of the Act of 1977, the Government has the power to invest any Court inferior in grade to a District Court with the functions of a District Court, which would then exercise all powers conferred by the Act of 1977, as if it were a District Court. Although, learned counsel for the appellants has been unable to specifically pinpoint as to whether the Court at Gandoh has been vested with the powers of District Court in reference to the Act of 1977, yet what is important to note here is the fact that the respondent No. 1 in its application had not at all mentioned the factum of the pendency of the proceedings before the Court of learned Munsiff, Gandoh. There was, thus, a clear concealment on the part of the respondent No. 1 of the fact, which was material, and would ordinarily have been sufficient for the District Court to dismiss the said application at the very outset.

¶28

MA No. 508/2013

¶29

¶30

The story does not end here. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that, inasmuch as, the appellant No. 1-Lalita Devi was reflected as a nominee in the Bank Account of the deceased, the bank transferred the amount lying in the Account of the appellant No. 1 into the Account of respondent No. 1. Subsequently, however, when the respondent No. 1 obtained the certificate dated 06.09.2013, impugned in the present appeal, the bank without the consent and knowledge of the appellant No. 1, transferred the amount from the Account of the appellant No. 1 into the Account of respondent No. 1. It is stated that this was done without there being any express order for any such transfer from the Bank Account of the deceased. A prayer is, thus, made in the appeal for a direction to the Bank to transfer the amount in question.

¶31

11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length.

¶32

The certificate dated 06.09.2013, impugned in the present appeal, has clearly been obtained by the respondent No. 1 by concealing the factum of the pendency of an earlier application before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh, in which proceedings, the appellant No. 1, had already moved an application for impleadment as a party. The filing the proceedings before the District Court was, therefore, clearly an attempt to subvert the process of the law, which had already been put into motion before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh. Any such action and manipulation in concealing the material facts cannot be permitted to result in either an undue benefit on any party, much less the respondent No. 1. Moreover, the action needs to be undone, especially, when there are the competing claims by the appellant No. 1 that she was the legal heir of the

¶33

MA No. 508/2013

¶34

¶35

deceased and was entitled to receive the amount, which was stated to be illegally withdrawn from her Account by the Bank.

¶36

Be that as it may, the order impugned is set aside. The District Court is directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties. However, in case the District Court comes to conclusion that appellant No. 1 was also entitled to receive benefits being the legal representative of the deceased either partly or wholly, then it shall be open to the District Court to take such steps as otherwise permissible in law to ensure that the benefit is restored to the rightful claimant.

¶37

Further, in case the appellant No. 1 feels that the Bank has wrongly transferred the amount from her Account and acted illegally, without any authority either from the Court or the appellant No. 1, it would be open to the appellant No 1 to avail such remedies available in law, claiming deficiency of services or otherwise.

¶38

Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected IA.

¶39

Parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal District Judge, Bhaderwah on 27.10.2021.

¶40

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge

¶41

Jammu

¶42

06.10.2021 Ram Krishan

¶43

Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No

Lalita Devi and Anr. v. Om Parkash and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Devi and Anr. v. Om Parkash and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.O.I. Th. Defence Estate Officer Vs Praveen Singh and Ors.

Swaran Singh and Anr. Vs Ajit Singh

Ashok Kumar and Others Vs Ludri Ram and Another

Raj Kumar Vs State Th.Pwd.and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Roshin Din and Ors.

Ram Kumar Vs State Th.G.a.D.and Ors.