Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-
CUM- ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) :
DELHI
Presided over by: Ms. Medha Arya
Petition No. : SC/137/2023
CNR No.: DLCT03-004994-2023
In the matter of:-
Neelam Bedi
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Bedi,
R/o Flat No. 1104, Tower 16,
Orange County, GH-4,
Ahinsha Khand-4, Indirapuram,
Shipra Suntcity, Ghaziabad,
U.P.-201014
Also at:
1816, First Floor, Wazir
Singh Street, Chuna Mandi,
Pahar Ganj, Swami Ram Tirth
Nagar, Delhi-110055.
....Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Delhi
2. Ruchika Bansal
W/o Gaurav Bansal,
R/o Flat No. 1104, Tower 16,
Orange County, GH-4,
Ahinsha Khand-4, Indirapuram,
Shipra Suntcity, Ghaziabad,
U.P.-201014
3. Company Secretary &
Chief Compliance Officer,
Reliance Industries Ltd.,
Maker Chambers IV, Third Floor,
222, Nariman Point, Mumbai,
Maharastra-400021.
Also at:
General Manager
Kfin Technologies Ltd.,
SC/137/2023 Neelam Bedi Vs. State & Ors. 1/7
-- 1 of 7 --
Karvy Selenium Tower B, Plot no. 31-32,
Gachibowli, Financial Distt., Nankramguda,
Hyderabad, Telangana-500032.
Also at:
General Manager
Kfin Technologies,
Third Floor, New Delhi House,
27, Barakhamba Road,
Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
.....Respondents
Date of Institution : 06.09.2023
Date of order when reserved : 03.02.2024
Date of order when announced : 09.02.2024
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. Subhash Bedi (hereinafter
referred as 'the deceased').
2. It is averred that deceased, namely, Sh. Subhash Bedi,
S/o. Late Sh. TC Bedi, died on 20.12.2013 at Delhi. It is stated
that the deceased was an ordinary resident of 1816, First Floor,
Wazir Singh Street, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi which
falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is further stated that
deceased person was survived by two legal heirs i.e. his widow,
being the petitioner and one daughter, being respondent no. 2.
3. It is averred that the deceased has left behind 284
shares of Reliance Industries Ltd under the folio bearing no.
SC/137/2023 Neelam Bedi Vs. State & Ors. 2/7
-- 2 of 7 --
032060170 lying in the name of the deceased. In the petition,
petitioner has prayed for grant of succession certificate in respect
of debts and securities as mentioned in the petition since the
deceased person died intestate.
4. The petitioner has stated herself to be the widow of the
deceased. She has impleaded the State as respondent no. 1,
Ruchika Bansal as respondent no. 2, Company Secretary & Chief
Compliance Officer, Reliance Industries Ltd. as respondent no. 3.
5. After filing of this petition, notice was given to the
general public by way of publication in the newspaper “Veer
Arjun” dated 18.09.2023, but no one appeared from general
public to oppose or contest the present petition.
6. In order to substantiate her case, the petitioner
examined herself as PW-1.
7. As PW-1, she tendered her evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. PW-1/1 in which she avouched on oath that besides
her, respondent no. 2 namely Ruchika Bansal is the only Class-I
legal heir of the deceased. She also relied upon the following
documents in her testimony:-
(i) Copy of her Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW-1/A (OSR).
(ii) Copy of death certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW-
1/B (OSR).
(iii) Copy of surviving member certificate of deceased as
Ex.PW-1/C (OSR).
PW-1 testified that her husband, being deceased
Subhash Bedi, expired on 20.12.2013, at Delhi. PW-1 further
SC/137/2023 Neelam Bedi Vs. State & Ors. 3/7
-- 3 of 7 --
testified that respondent no. 2 has given her no objection to grant
of succession certificate in her favour. PW-1 also testified that
mother of the deceased predeceased the deceased. PW-1 also
deposed that deceased did not execute any Will during his
lifetime. PW-1 also deposed that deceased has left behind 284
shares of Reliance Industries Ltd, certified copy of which is
already exhibited in the testimony of the witness from Kfin
Technologies Ltd., RTA of Reliance Industries Ltd. as Ex. RW-
2/2, as per which the tenantative market value of the said 284
shares is Rs.6,99,000/-(approx.) as on 14.12.2023. PW-1 further
deposed that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the instant
proceeding and also avouched that there is no impediment for
grant of succession certificate in her favour.
8. Testimony of respondent no. 2 namely, Ruchika Bansal
has been recorded as RW-1 with regard to her no objection to
grant of Succession Certificate in favour of petitioner, qua the
debts and securities of the deceased which are the subject matter
of the present petition.
9. RW-2 Mr. Vikas Pandey, Asstt. Manager, Kfin
Technologies Ltd., RTA of Reliance Industries Ltd., Office At 305,
New Delhi House, 27 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New
Delhi-110001 exhibited the certified report of said 284 shares of
Reliance Industries Ltd. bearing folio no. 032060170 lying in the
name of the deceased as Ex.RW-2/2. As per which, the tentative
market value of Rs.6,99,000/- (approx.) as on 14.12.2023.
10. The Court has heard submissions advanced on behalf
of the petitioner and has perused the record. Considered.
SC/137/2023 Neelam Bedi Vs. State & Ors. 4/7
-- 4 of 7 --
11. It is no longer res integra that succession petitions are
to be decided summarily. Sec. 373 of the Indian Succession Act
provides that a succession petition is to be decided in a summary
manner and even if court cannot decide the right to the certificate
without determining questions of law or fact which may seem to
be too complicated and difficult for determination in a summary
proceedings, the Court may nevertheless grant a certificate to a
person if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best
title thereto. Thus U/s. 373 of Indian Succession Act, only prima
facie case is to be seen and other questions of law and fact which
may be complicated are to be decided by a regular civil court.
12. In the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and
others Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and others,
Respondents. 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 timebarred,
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”.
SC/137/2023 Neelam Bedi Vs. State & Ors. 5/7
-- 5 of 7 --
13. Facts of the case shall be analyzed through the prism
of legal position enunciated above.
14. As per uncontroverted testimony of PW-1, the
deceased left behind two Class-I legal heir i.e. his widow, being
petitioner herself and one daughter, being respondent no. 2. The
succession of a male Hindu who dies intestate is determined as
per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘HSA’). As per Section 8 of HSA considered
alongwith Schedule appended therewith, all the Class-I legal heirs
of the deceased are equally entitled to his assets. The widow and
daughter of deceased Sh. Subhash Bedi are class-I legal heirs of
deceased. His mother predeceased him. PW-1 testified that
deceased did not leave behind any other Class-I legal heirs. As
such, petitioner and respondent no. 2 are entitled to succeed to the
property of the deceased simultaneously and equally.
15. The daughter of the deceased being respondent no. 2
has stated on oath that she has no objection if succession
certificate is granted in favour of the petitioner.
16. As per death certificate of deceased, Ex.PW-1/A, he
ordinarily resided within he territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
The deceased died intestate qua debts and securities mentioned in
petition i.e. 284 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd.
Total value of the securities held by deceased turn out
to be Rs.6,99,000/-.
17. In view of the evidence adduced by the petitioner
which has remained unrebutted and uncontroverted, the Court is
SC/137/2023 Neelam Bedi Vs. State & Ors. 6/7
-- 6 of 7 --
of the considered opinion that there is prima-facie no impediment
for grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner,
namely, Neelam Bedi in the debts and securities of deceased
Subhash Bedi in terms of Ex. RW-2/2, having tentative market
value of Rs.6,99,000/-. Succession Certificate granted
accordingly. Succession certificate be drawn on deposit of
proportionate requisite court fee of Rs.17,475/- in terms of Article
12 Schedule 1 of Court Fees Act, 1870, as applicable in Delhi and
on furnishing an Indemnity Bond with one surety within 45 days
from today.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open (MEDHA ARYA)
court on 09.02.2024 Administrative Civil Judge-cum-
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi.
SC/137/2023 Neelam Bedi Vs. State & Ors. 7/7
-- 7 of 7 --