Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Nitish Kumar Sharma
CNR No. DLET030014102024
SC No. 114/24
1. Sh. Harish
S/o Late Sh. Ram Pal,
2. Smt. Choti Devi
W/o Late Sh. Ram Pal,
Both R/o H. No. 116,
Block No. 17, Trilok Puri,
Delhi-110091. …Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Represented through SDM,
District East, Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110031.
2. The Employee’s Provident Fund Organization
Through its EPFO Regional Officer, Delhi,
Jhilmil Industrial Area,
Jhilmil, Delhi-110095. ...Respondents
Date of Institution 14.11.2024
Date of conclusion of arguments 06.08.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment 06.08.2026
SC- 114/24 Page No. 1/11
-- 1 of 11 --
PETITION U/S 372 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under section 372 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925 by Sh. Harish and Smt. Choti Devi
(hereinafter called petitioners) for a Succession Certificate in
respect of debt and securities existing in the name of deceased Late
Sh. Nirmal Kumar who is stated to have expired on 02.01.2023 at
Delhi.
2. The petitioners are governed by Hindu Law.
3. The Notice of the present petition was given to the State by
way of publication for the knowledge and awareness of general
public in the newspaper 'Veer Arjun'. However, nobody from the
general public has filed any objection to the present petition.
4. During enquiry, petitioner no. 2 examined herself as PW-2.
Petitioner no. 2 proved the death of her deceased son by producing
copy of his death certificate which is Ex PW-2/A. Husband of
petitioner no. 2 has already expired. Petitioner no. 2 has also
brought copy of his identity proof i.e Aadhar Card which is Mark
B.
Official from the office of SDM Office, concerned has
already filed report of surviving member certificate.
5. RW-1 Sh. Kumar Mukesh Nandan, SSA, EPFO, DSIIDC,
Facility Centre, Flatted Factory Complex, Jhilmil, Delhi-110095,
has filed the statement pertaining to PF account bearing account
SC- 114/24 Page No. 2/11
-- 2 of 11 --
no. DSSHD14967490000000030 existing in the name of deceased
Late Sh. Nirmal. The reply shows a balance of Rs. 1,28,807/-
(Employee Share) & Rs. 44,178/- (Employer Share). The same is
Ex RW-1/B (colly running into 24 pages).
6. Petitioner no. 1 is the other legal heir of the deceased who
gave his no objection with respect to the grant of succession
certificate in favour of the petitioner no. 2.
7. The court has heard submissions made by the counsel and
has perused the record.
8. 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
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
SC- 114/24 Page No. 3/11
-- 3 of 11 --
not become the owner of the property."
9. 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.
10. Furthermore, the order granting issuance of the succession
certificate does not become executable as decree of the court. It
only allows the grantee to receive the debts thereby discharging the
SC- 114/24 Page No. 4/11
-- 4 of 11 --
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
SC- 114/24 Page No. 5/11
-- 5 of 11 --
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
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
SC- 114/24 Page No. 6/11
-- 6 of 11 --
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."
11. In the case of
Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma and others Vs.
SC- 114/24 Page No. 7/11
-- 7 of 11 --
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
SC- 114/24 Page No. 8/11
-- 8 of 11 --
claims of the heir inter se".
12. 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 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.
13. Facts of the case shall be analyzed through the prism of legal
position enunciated above.
14. From the uncontroverted testimony of PW-1, it stands
established that Late Sh. Nirmal Kumar died intestate on
02.01.2023. Thus, as per section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, the
property would devolve upon the class-I legal heir as specified in
the schedule.
Notably, no objection has been given by petitioner no. 1 and
thus in view of the same and supported documents relating to the
SC- 114/24 Page No. 9/11
-- 9 of 11 --
said debt and securities existing in the name of deceased; prima
facie, petitioner no. 2 seems to be entitled to the issuance of a
succession certificate.
15. Since the last place of residence of the deceased namely Late
Sh. Nirmal Kumar is reflected to be within the territorial
jurisdiction of this court, there is no bar to the grant of relief on the
ground of jurisdiction.
16. In the overall circumstances of the case, the court finds no
impediment to the grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the
petitioner no. 2.
17. Thus, the present petition is allowed and succession
certificate is ordered to be issued in favour of the petitioner no. 2
lying in the said funds which are as follows:-
S
No.
Name of fund / Account no. /Institution
Name
Amount
1. PFAccount / DSSHD14967490000000030
/ EPFO, DSIIDC, Facility Centre, Flatted
Factory Complex, Jhilmil, Delhi-110095.
Rs. 1,28,807/-
(Employee Share)
and Rs. 44,178/-
(Employer Share).
18. The holder of the succession certificate would also be
entitled to any future interest on the aforesaid debt and securities as
may accrue and existing in the name of her deceased son Late Sh.
Nirmal Kumar @ Nirmal.
SC- 114/24 Page No. 10/11
-- 10 of 11 --
19. Let requisite court fee in terms of Article 12 of Schedule-I of
Court Fees Act as applicable to Delhi, and an indemnity bond with
one surety of like amount be furnished within 15 days by petitioner
no. 2.
File be consigned to Record Room after due-compliance.
Announced in open Court
Delhi Dated 06.08.2026
Nitish Kumar Sharma
ACJ-CCJ-ARC(East)
KKD Courts/Delhi
SC- 114/24 Page No. 11/11
-- 11 of 11 --