Allowed

Mukesh Kumar v. P.S.E.B. etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2011RSA/3671/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed RSA No.3671 of 2010, condoning delay in appeal. The suit for declaring the petitioner as an adopted son and for succession/service benefits was dismissed below. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the petitioner is not an adopted son but noted he is a nominee entitled to financial benefits if not claimed by other successors.

What did the court decide?

Condoned delay in filing appeal and allowed RSA No.3671 of 2010.

Mukesh Kumar Vs P.S.E.B. etc. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

RSA No.3671 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

RSA No.3671 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.5.2011

Mukesh Kumar

petitioner

Punjab State Electricity Board etc.

¶9

respondent

¶10

Present:Mr. Rk Rana, Advocate.

¶11

M.M.S.BEDI

¶12

CM 10782 C of 2010 is allowed and delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

¶13

The suit of the plaintiff-appellant for declaration that he is a adopted son of Banwari Lal deceased, an employee of PSEB stands dismissed by the courts below.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff-appellant being the adopted son of deceased Banwari lal had bequeathed the entire property of Banwari Lal by virtue of a Will dated 4.3.1987. He had obtained a succession certificate. Despite the said succession certificate the appellant has not been granted the benefit of leave encashment, gratuity, GPF and other service benefits. The relief of mandatory injunction for appointment on compassionate ground on priority basis was also declined by the courts below.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Deceased Banwari Lal was an employee of PSEB. He was admittedly unmarried. The plaintiff-

¶16

RSA No.3671 of 2010

¶17

¶18

appellant being his nephew has been held to be not an adopted son of Banwari Lal by a concurrent finding of facts by the courts below. So far as the Succession Certificate is concerned, he has not impleaded the PSEB as a party to claim the service benefits of the deceased Banwari Lal. The plaintiff – appellant has not been able to establish the adoption by proving the ceremonies as required under the Adoption and Maintenance Act. No ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent finding of fact, arrived at by the courts below.

¶19

Dismissed. However, it is made clear that in case the plaintiffappellant falls within one of the successors of Banwari Lal, he would be entitled to the financial benefits, if any, accrued to him on account of death of Banwari Lal. On account of he being a nominee of Banwari Lal, as per the record of the Electricity Department, he may be released the financial benefits, if not claimed by any other successors of Banwari Lal.

¶20

(M.M.S.BEDI ) JUDGE

¶21

May 6 , 2011 TSM

Mukesh Kumar v. P.S.E.B. etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. P.S.E.B. etc.

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

Pardeep Singla Vs State of Punjab

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Vs Sham Sunder

Brij Mohini Sharma Vs Sharda Sharma & Ors.

Subani Vs Mact,Gurgaon and Anr.

Punjabi University and Ors. Vs Sukhdev Singh