Allowed

Swyam Prakash Swami v. Jagdish

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2018CMA/1673/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges an order dismissing a succession certificate application. The High Court held that a chela, recognized as the spiritual heir of a Udasi with no natural family, is entitled to succeed to the deceased's private property. The appellate court quashed the lower court's finding and remanded the matter to issue the certificate.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed. The lower court order regarding issue No. 1 was quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to issue a succession certificate to the appellant.

Swyam Prakash Swami Vs Jagdish — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1673/2005

¶3

Swayam Prakash Swami adopted S/o Shri Kalyandas Swami, chella Purushottam Dasji, aged about 38 years, By Caste Swami, R/o Village Banetha, Tehsil Uniyara District Tonk. At Present Residing At 412, Chandsen House, Outside Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur.

¶4

----Appellant/ Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jagdish S/o Shri Kalyan Das chela Dhanna Das, By Caste Swami , R/o Village Banetha, Tehsil Uniyara District Tonk.

¶7

----Respondent/ Objector

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

05/07/2018

¶12

Appellant- applicant Swayam Prakash Swami preferred this misc. appeal assailing the impugned order dated 03.05.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Tonk in I.S.A. No. 51/2002 whereby learned Court below dismissed the application submitted by appellant- applicant under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-applicant submitted an application before the learned District Judge, Tonk for grant of succession certificate in respect of various amounts deposited by deceased Shri Manohar Das Nihang Dadupanthi chela of late Shri Purushottam Das. The details of which was given in the application. The appellant-applicant in his application stated

¶14

(2 of 7) [CMA-1673/2005]

¶15

that Shri Manohar Das chela of Late Shri Purushottam Das has expired on 20.6.2002 and before his death deceased- Shri Manohar Das had executed a will dated 2.5.2002 in the presence of witnesses namely Madan Lal Sharma and Badri Das Swami. The will was executed by Shri Manohar Das also relates to his other properties apart from the Bank accounts/FDRs. It was pleaded in the application by appellant-applicant that Shri Manohar Das was unmarried throughout his life and the appellant is a sole legal representative and successor in the interest of Shri Manohar Das. Shri Manohar Das was in Government Service and he took voluntary retirement in the year 1977. The appellant-applicant rendered his services to deceased Shri Manohar Das and got him treated at various places including Mahaveer Cancer Institute and Monilake Hospital, Jaipur and bore the entire expenses of his treatment.

¶16

After the death of Shri Manohar Das, the appellant performed all the post funeral rites according to the custom prevalent in the community and the appellant was recognized as successor in presence of the Samaj of Dadu Panthi and other respectable members of the community and as per the custom the Chadar ceremony was also performed recognizing the appellant as successor of Late Shri Manohar Das. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to the grant of succession certificate for recovery of various amount deposited in the accounts/FDRs of the Bank which were in the name of Shri Manohar Das and detail whereof were attached with the application.

¶17

A general notice was published in the newspaper according to the procedure laid down and citation was issued to respondent

¶18

(3 of 7)

¶19

[CMA-1673/2005]

¶20

No.1 (Objector) Jagdish S/o Kalyan Das by the Court below wherein respondent Shri Jagdish Swami filed his objections that no will was executed by Shri Manohar Das on 2.5.2002 in fact Shri Manohar Das was in village Banetha on 2.5.2002 and had gone to Jaipur for treatment on 20.5.2002. It was further pleaded by Shri Jagdish Swami that the appellant is not an adopted son of Kalyan Dasji. After the retirement, Shri Manohar Das lived with the father of the objector Shri Kalyan Dasji chela of Shri Dhanna Dasji and after the death of Kalyan Dasji, Shri Manohar Das lived with the objector at village Banetha. It was the objector who got Shri Manohar Das treated at different hospitals at Jaipur when he had suffered cancer.

¶21

It was also pleaded that on 2.5.2002, Shri Manohar Das was sick and was not in a position to execute a Will. It was also pleaded that two stamps on which the alleged will dated 2.5.2002 has been written, are of different dates and are also not signed by Shri Manohar Das on the back of the some papers. Both the attesting witnesses are employee of RTO office i.e. office where the appellant is working. Appellant is not working in the office of RTO for last more than 3 years and is posted in the office of Commissioner Transport, Parivahan Bhawan, Opp. State Motor Garrage, Jaipur.

¶22

In the additional pleas, it was pleaded that no succession certificate can be issued on the basis of the application. Appellantapplicant is natural born son of Shri Ram Sharan Dasji and Kalyan Dasji, who was the adoptive father of the appellant was a different person then the father of the objector.

¶23

(4 of 7)

¶24

[CMA-1673/2005]

¶25

It is further pleaded that the mutation of lands of Ram Sharana had been entered in favour of the appellant and as such the succession certificate for the property of Shri Manohar Das cannot be issued in favour of the appellant.

¶26

On the pleadings, learned Court below framed following issues :-

¶27

(1) Whether the appellant is chella of Shri Manohar Das?

¶28

(2) Whether Manohar Das has executed will on 2.5.2002 in favour of the appellant?

¶29

(3) Whether the respondent-objector Jagdish Das is the successor in interest of Shri Manohar Das?

¶30

(4) Whether the wife of appellant Reena is a necessary party in this matter?

¶31

(5) Relief?

¶32

The appellant-applicant in his evidence examined himself and the attesting witness Shri Badri Das Swami and in the documentary evidence, the appellant produced the documents and the respondent- objector didn’t examine even himself nor any other witness in support of his objections.

¶33

Thereafter, after hearing while deciding issue No.- 1, learned Court below observed that though the appellant- applicant succeeded to prove that he is chela of Shri Manohar Das but he cannot be declared as successor regarding the property mentioned in the application, therefore he is not entitled for succession certificate. Issue No.- 2 was also decided against the appellantapplicant and in favour of respondent- objector, issue No. 3 was decided against the respondent- objector and issue No. 4 was also

¶34

(5 of 7) [CMA-1673/2005]

¶35

decided against the respondent- objector and thereafter application under Section 372 of India Succession Act was dismissed, against which this misc. appeal is preferred.

¶36

Mr. Sanjay Joshi learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that while deciding issue No. 1, learned Court below decided that appellant- applicant is chela of Shri Manohar Das still he is not entitled for succession certificate regarding the property mentioned in the application.

¶37

He further submits that in the matter of Mahant Amar Dass Chela Mahant Jai Ram Das vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandak Committee, Amritsar reported in AIR 1992 Punjab and Haryana 288, it was held that spiritual heir including chela who is recognized as spiritual son is entitled for the personal property of his Guru also. Without considering this case law, learned Court below wrongly declined to issue succession certificate in favour of the appellant- applicant, therefore this misc. appeal may be allowed.

¶38

Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent- objector supported the impugned order and submits that the appeal may be dismissed.

¶39

I have considered the submissions made at Bar.

¶40

Since, findings of learned Court below have not been challenged by respondent- objector, therefore the finding regarding the fact that appellant- applicant is chela of deceased Shri Manohar Das in issue No. 1 has attained finality.

¶41

In the matter of Mahant Amar Dass Chela Mahant Jai Ram Das vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandak Committee, Amritsar

¶42

(6 of 7)

¶43

[CMA-1673/2005]

¶44

(supra) Division Bench of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that :-

¶45

“When a person enters the Udasi order, he severs his connection with the members of his natural family. It follows that neither he nor his natural relative can succeed to the property held by the other. There is however no reason for holding that an Udasi cannot acquire private property with his own money or by his own exertions. If he does acquire private property, it cannot be inherited by his natural relatives, but passes on his death to his spiritual heir including his chela who is recognised as his spiritual son. The decent of the property from a guru to his chela does not warrant -the presumption that it is religious property. ”

¶46

Here, in the case in hand also except respondent no-one objected the application submitted by the appellant- petitioner. Since, appellant- applicant is chela of Shri Manohar Das and it is admitted position that Manohar Das expired without leaving any legal heir, therefore in view of the aforesaid observation of Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, appellant is entitled for the personal property of Shri Manohar Das also.

¶47

Without considering this fact, learned Court below wrongly rejected the application, which is not sustainable, therefore the finding of Court below regarding issue No. -1 to the extent that “fdUrq og bl :i esa Jh euksgjnkl dk mRrjkf/kdkjh izkFkZuk i= esa mfYyf[kr jkf’k ds lEcU/k esa ugha ekuk tk ldrk rFkk bl dkj.ko’k bl :i esa og vius i{k esa bl jkf’k ds lEcU/k esa mRrjkf/kdkj izek.k i= tkjh djokus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA” is not sustainable and is quashed and set aside and it is held that being a chela of Shri Manohar Das, appellant- applicant is entitled for succession certificate of the property of Shri Manohar Das, details of which is mentioned in his application. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided in favour of appellant- petitioner and against respondent.

¶48

(7 of 7)

¶49

[CMA-1673/2005]

¶50

Accordingly, this misc. appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled for succession certificate regarding the property left by Shri Manohar Das.

¶51

Learned trial Court is directed to issue succession certificate in favour of the appellant- applicant as prayed in application for the property mentioned therein after furnishing required Court fees by him.

¶52

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶53

S. Kumawat/01

Swyam Prakash Swami v. Jagdish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swyam Prakash Swami v. Jagdish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Vs Mahipal and Anr.

Major Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Yakub Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Gyrasi Lal Agarwal Vs Thakur Ji Shri Gopal Ji

Hardev Meena and Ors. Vs a D J Jaipur and Ors.

Santosh and Ors. Vs Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors.