Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided Over By: Sh. Bharat Aggarwal
Petition No. : Succ. Court 76/2025
CNR No. : DLCT03-004503-2025
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. Rama Devi
w/o Late Shri Sandeep Kumar
r/o H. No. 10850, Gali Phool Wali Manakpura,
Karol Bagh, Delhi
Presently residing at:-
H. No.10-A-1, Suryakunj, Part-1,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
…..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Ashok Vihar, North-West District,
Delhi
2. Ms. Anita Devi
w/o Late Sh. Ishwar Dass
r/o H. No.10850, Phoolwali Gali,
East Park Road, Manakpura,
Karol Bagh, Delhi
.....RESPONDENTS
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 1 of 11
-- 1 of 11 --
Date of institution : 23.07.2025
Date of judgment : 09.01.2026
J U D G M E N T
1. The present succession petition has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act, 1925
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in respect of debts and securities
of the deceased Late Sh. Sandeep Kumar s/o Late Sh. Ishwar Dass
(hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') who is stated to be the
husband of petitioner, and son of respondent no.2.
2. It is averred in the petition that the deceased died
intestate on 20.03.2018 at Delhi. It is further stated that the deceased
was an ordinary resident of H. No.10850, Gali Phool Wali
Manakpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, which falls within the jurisdiction of
this Court. It is further stated that the deceased is survived by two
legal heirs i.e. the petitioner, being his widow, and respondent no.2,
being his mother.
3. It is averred that the deceased had left behind his service
dues in the department of Delhi Police, North-West District, Delhi.
In the petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of succession
certificate in respect of service dues of the deceased, as the deceased
is stated to have died intestate.
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 2 of 11
-- 2 of 11 --
4. After filing of this petition, notice was given to the
general public by way of publication in the newspaper “The
Statesman” dated 06.08.2025 but none appeared from general public
to oppose or contest the present petition.
5. During summary enquiry, four witnesses were examined.
6. Petitioner took the witness stand as PW-1. PW-1 deposed
that the deceased Mr. Sandeep Kumar was her husband who expired
on 20.03.2018 at Delhi and she relied upon his death certificate as
Mark-A. PW-1 further deposed that besides her, the deceased has
left behind his mother, who is respondent no.2 in the present
petition and that respondent no. 2 has given her no objection
qua her
share in the debts and securities of the deceased for grant of
succession certificate in her favour. PW-1 also deposed that there is
no other legal heir of the deceased. PW-1 further deposed that the
deceased did not execute any Will during his life time. PW-1 also
deposed that the deceased has left behind his service dues as
mentioned in the present petition.
7. RW-1, Mr. Puneet Rana, Patwari, SMD Office, Karol
Bagh, Delhi, could not bring the Surviving Member Certificate of
the deceased since the same has not been applied for by any of the
family members of the deceased.
8. Respondent no.2 / mother of the deceased was examined
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 3 of 11
-- 3 of 11 --
and discharged as RW-2. She deposed that she has no objection for
grant of succession certificate in favour of the petitioner
qua her
share in respect of debts and securities of the deceased.
9. RW-3, SI Sunil Kumar, Delhi Police, North West
District, Delhi, brought the summoned record in respect of service
dues of deceased Late Sh. Sandeep Kumar, and relied upon the
same as Ex.RW-3/2. As per the same, an amount of Rs.3,44,112/- is
due towards Death Cum Retirement Gratuity; Rs.30,000/- is due
towards CGEIS (Insurance); Rs.2,392/- is due towards CGEIS
(Savings); Rs.5,00,000/- is due towards Delhi Police Welfare
Scheme; Rs.5,00,000/- is due towards Axis Bank Insurance Claim
(natural / accidental death); Rs.2,38,011/- approx. is due towards
leave encashment. RW-3 also deposed that Cremation charges of
Rs.10,000/- has already been paid to the family at the time of
cremation of deceased.
10. The Court has heard submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties and has perused the record.
11. Before proceeding further, the law pertaining to grant of
succession certificate may be discussed for better understanding of
the concept. It is trite that merely by grant of succession certificate,
the holder does not become the owner of the estate of the deceased.
In this regard, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
C.K. Prahalada and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.
[MANU/SC/7618/2008, (2008) 15 SCC 577] are relevant to be
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 4 of 11
-- 4 of 11 --
noted, which are as follows:
“A succession certificate is granted for a
limited purpose. A Court granting a succession
certificate does not decide the question of title. A
nominee or holder of succession certificate has a
duty to hand over the property to the person who
has a legal title thereto. By obtaining a succession
certificate alone, a person does not become the
owner of the property.”
12. It is also well settled that the holder of the certificate has
a bounden duty to release the debt and securities of the deceased to
the rightful claimant under the applicable law. Certain observations
of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
Atul Maithel vs. State Bank of
India and Ors. [MANU/DE/3548/2017] are set out below:-
“14. As far as the only other contention
is concerned, the Court granting the Succession
Certificate only issues the certificate to declare to
the public at large, of the grantee thereof being
entitled, under orders of the Court, to collect the
debts and securities of the deceased and to give
due discharge therefor. However, if any person
holding such debts and securities refuses to return
the same to the grantee or disputes debts and
securities, the grantee will have to initiate
appropriate proceedings for recovery thereof and
the proceedings for grant of Succession
Certificate are by no stretch of imagination,
proceedings for recovery or for mandatory
injunction.
13. Furthermore, the order granting issuance of the succession
certificate does not become executable as decree of the court. It only
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 5 of 11
-- 5 of 11 --
allows the grantee to receive the debts thereby discharging the
debtor of the deceased relieving him from the multiple claims made
for such a debt. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this regard has
further held in
Sushila Devi Vs. State and Ors.
[MANU/DE/3075/2017] that no execution proceedings lie against
the debtor of the order passed under such proceedings and holder
has to establish his claim independently in a civil suit. The findings
of the court were as follows:-
“6. The counsel for the petitioner appears to be
under a misconception of law that an order of
issuance of Succession Certificate or a Succession
Certificate is executable decree against the
persons holding the debts and securities of the
deceased.
7. A Succession Certificate only entitles the
grantee thereof to claim and receive the debts and
securities of the deceased, giving a full discharge
to the persons who may be holding the said debts
and securities, so as to relieve them from claim by
multiple persons claiming to be the heirs of the
deceased. Before granting such Succession
Certificate, in a proceeding for grant of
Succession Certificate which in any case is
summary in nature, the persons holding debts and
securities are not required to be impleaded and a
perusal of the order dated 14th November, 2014
ordering issuance of Succession Certificate in
favour of the petitioner also does not show Axis
Bank, Khan Market, New Delhi and New India
Insurance Co. Ltd. claimed to be holding the said
debts and securities of the deceased to be parties
thereto. Merely because an applicant for
Succession Certificate has averred in the petition
that the debts and securities mentioned in the
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 6 of 11
-- 6 of 11 --
application are due to the deceased, is no proof of
the said debts and securities being due to the
deceased and a proceeding for grant of Succession
Certificate is not meant for adjudication of the
said issues. If the persons who are claimed to be
holding the debts and securities of the deceased
dispute the claim, the entitlement in law of the
grantee of the Succession Certificate is only to
make a legal claim against them and not to
execute the Succession Certificate or an order
granting Succession Certificate.
9. I find the Supreme Court in Banarsi Dass Vs.
Teeku Dutta MANU/SC/0333/2005 : (2005) 4
SCC 449 to have held (i) that the main object of a
Succession Certificate is to facilitate collection of
debts on succession and afford protection to
parties paying debts to representatives of the
deceased person; (ii) all that the Succession
Certificate purports to do is to facilitate the
collection of debts, to regulate the administration
of succession and to protect persons who deal
with the alleged representatives of the deceased
persons; (iii) such a Certificate does not give any
general power of administration on the estate of
the deceased; (iv) the grant of a certificate does
not establish title of the grantee as the heir of the
deceased; (v) a Succession Certificate is intended
to protect the debtors, which means that where a
debtor of a deceased person either voluntarily
pays his debt to a person holding a certificate or is
compelled by a decree of the Court to pay it to the
person, he is lawfully discharged; and, (vi) the
grant of a certificate does not establish a title of
the grantee as the heir of the deceased, but only
furnishes him with authority to collect his debts
and allows the debtors to make payments to him
without incurring any risk.”
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 7 of 11
-- 7 of 11 --
14. In the case of
Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and others
Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and others. [AIR 2000
Supreme Court 2301=2000 AIR SCW 2432] it was held as under :-
“The enquiry in proceedings for grant of
succession certificate is to be summary, and the
Court, without determining questions of law or
fact, which seem to it to be too intricate and
difficult for determination, should grant the
certificate to the person who appears to have
prima facie the best title thereto. In such cases the
Court has not to determine definitely and finally
as to who has the best right to the estate. All that
it is required to do is to hold a summary enquiry
into the right to the certificate, with a view, on the
one hand, to facilitate the collection of debts due
to deceased and prevent their being time barred,
owing (for instance) to dispute between the heirs
inter se as to their preferential right to succession,
and, on the other hand, to afford protection to the
debtors by appointing a representative of the
deceased and authorising him to give a valid
discharge for the debts. The grant of a certificate
to a person does not give him an absolute right to
the debts nor does it bar a regular suit for
adjustment of the claims of the heir inter se”.
15. Thus, to sum up, it can be inferred that the succession
certificate ensures that process of release of debt of the deceased is
streamlined and the debtor is provided security against numerous
claims. The aim of such certificate is that it acts as conclusive proof
for discharge of money against the debtor. The court granting the
certificate is not required to determine the question of title and the
Court by its order granting the certificate merely authorises one to
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 8 of 11
-- 8 of 11 --
collect the debts or securities of the deceased who then acts as a
trustee to distribute the amount to the legal heirs of the deceased.
Even though the proceedings for issuance of succession certificate
are summary in nature yet, in terms of Rule 3(d) of Part B- Chapter
6- Volume II of the Delhi High Court Rules, the court can take
sufficient evidence to enable it to form an opinion as to who is best
entitled to the certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased.
16. Facts of the case shall be analyzed through the prism of
legal position enunciated above.
17. From the uncontroverted testimony of petitioner/PW-1, it
stands established that the deceased died intestate on 20.03.2018 at
Delhi. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
inter-
alia
provides that when a hindu male dies intestate, his property shall
first devolve upon the Class-I legal heirs specified in the Schedule
of the Act. PW-1 specifically deposed that besides her, the deceased
has left behind his mother who is respondent no.2 in the present
petition. Accordingly, upon the death of the deceased, his property
devolved upon his mother and wife, who are respondent no.2 and
petitioner respectively, equally and simultaneously.
18. However, respondent no.2 has given her no objection for
grant of Succession Certificate in favour of petitioner. Accordingly,
petitioner shall be entitled to grant for succession certificate in the
debts and securities of the deceased. As per the death certificate of
the deceased, he used to reside at H. No.10850, Gali Phool Wali
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 9 of 11
-- 9 of 11 --
Manakpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, which falls within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court.
19. Succession certificate is sought
qua following debts and
securities of the deceased :-
An amount of Rs.3,44,112/- is due towards Death Cum
Retirement Gratuity; Rs.30,000/- is due towards CGEIS (Insurance);
Rs.2,392/- is due towards CGEIS (Savings); Rs.5,00,000/- is due
towards Delhi Police Welfare Scheme; Rs.5,00,000/- is due towards
Axis Bank Insurance Claim (natural / accidental death);
Rs.2,38,011/- approx. is due towards leave encashment in the
department of Delhi Police, North West District, Delhi.
Total value of debt/securities held by deceased turns out
to be Rs.16,14,515/-.
20. In view of the evidence adduced on record which has
remained unrebutted and uncontroverted, the Court is of the
considered opinion that there is
prima-facie no impediment for grant
of Succession Certificate in favour of petitioner
qua the debts and
securities of the deceased in terms of Ex.RW-3/2 having a total
amount of Rs.16,14,515/-.
Succession Certificate is granted in favour of petitioner.
Succession certificate be drawn on deposit of requisite court fees of
Rs.40,362.8/- (i.e. rounded off to Rs.40,363/-) by the petitioner in
terms of Article 12 of Schedule I of Court Fees Act, 1870, as
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 10 of 11
-- 10 of 11 --
applicable in Delhi and on furnishing an Indemnity Bond and Surety
Bond with one surety within 30 days from today.
Petition is accordingly disposed off.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal)
Today i.e. 09.01.2026 ACJ-cum-ARC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
Present judgment consists of 11 pages and each page
bears my initials.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
ACJ-cum-ARC, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts
09.01.2026
(A)
SC No. 76/25
Rama Devi Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police & Anr. Page No. 11 of 11
-- 11 of 11 --