Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN,
ACJ/CCJ/ARC, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLND030004262026
Under Section : 372 of The Indian Succession Act,
1925
SUCC No. : 16/2026
Paramjeet Kaur Chahal
(Daughter in Law / Age 43 Years)
W/o Late Sri Taranpreet Singh
House No. 35, 2nd floor, Hargovind
Enclave, Shakar Pur Baramad,
Shakarpur, East Delhi -110092 …… Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State, (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through SDM,
Vishwash Nagar
L.M, Bandh, Geeta Colony
Delhi-110031
Paramjeet Kaur Chahal Vs. State and Ors.
Page No. 1
of 9
-- 1 of 9 --
2. General Manager
Kfin Technologies
RTA of Reliance Industries Ltd.
3rd floor, New Delhi House 27,
Barakhamba Rd, Connought Place New Delhi-110001
Also at:
Mr. J Venkata Ramana (Manager)
KFin Technologies Ltd,
RTA of Jio Financial Services Ltd.
Karvy Selenium Tower B, Plot 31-32, Gachibowli, Financial
District, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500032
Email: rilinvestor@kfintech.com
3. MUFG Intime India Private Limited.
(Through its Directors)
(RTA of Tata Elxsi Ltd.) Noble Heights, Plot No NH-2, C-1
Block, LSC, Near Savitri Market, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058
Also At:
MUFG Intime India Private Limited.
(Through its Directors)
(RTA of Tata Elxsi Ltd.)
C-101, PT Floor, 247 Park, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Vikhroli
(West), Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400083
4. PROFARMA PARTIES:
Parvinder Singh Chahal (Son/Age 62 years)
S/o S.Kripal Singh Chahal
House No. 35, 2nd floor, Hargovind
Enclave, Opp.-Shanti Mukund
Hospital, Vikas Marg Extension Shakar Pur, Shakarpur, East
Delhi Delhi-110092
Paramjeet Kaur Chahal Vs. State and Ors.
Page No. 2
of 9
-- 2 of 9 --
5. Mrs. Avinash Kaur Grewal (Daughter / Age 65 years)
D/o S.Kripal Singh Chahal
W/o Nirmal Singh Grewal
House No. 1675, Street No. 1
Saheed Kamail Singh Nagar,
Phase-2, Pakhowal Road
Lidhiana, Punjab-141002
6. Prabhnoor Singh Chahal
(Grand Son / Age 19 years)
S/o Late Sri Taranpreet Singh
House No. 35, 2nd floor, Hargovind
Enclave, Shakar Pur Baramad,
Shakarpur, East Delhi-110092 .....Respondents
Date of Institution : 13.03.2026
Final arguments heard on : 16.09.2026
Judgment pronounced on : 17.09.2026
Petition under section 372 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925,
for the grant of a succession certificate in respect of the debts &
securities of the deceased S. Kirpal Singh Chahal @ Kirpal Singh
Chahal.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the
grant of a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian
Paramjeet Kaur Chahal Vs. State and Ors.
Page No. 3
of 9
-- 3 of 9 --
Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), in
respect of the debts and securities of the deceased S. Kirpal
Singh Chahal @ Kirpal Singh Chahal
(hereinafter referred to as
the “deceased”). It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased
S. Kirpal Singh Chahal @ Kirpal Singh Chahal was the father of
her deceased husband. It is further stated that the petitioner,
along with respondents no. 4, 5 and 6, are the sole surviving legal
heirs of the deceased, and the said respondents have no objection
if a succession certificate is granted in favour of the petitioner.
Hence, there is no impediment to the grant of a succession
certificate.
2. Vide order dated 13.03.2026, notice of the succession
petition was issued to the respondents. Further, besides service of
notice of petition upon respondents, this Court also directed for
publication of notice of succession petition in the daily
newspapers for inviting objections, if any, from the general
public qua the debts/securities of deceased S. Kirpal Singh
Chahal @ Kirpal Singh Chahal. Despite publication, no
objections to the grant of the succession certificate were received
from the general public. Further, a surviving member certificate
was filed on behalf of SDM/respondent no. 1 on 27.07.2026,
affirming that the petitioner, along with respondent no. 4 (son),
respondent no. 5(daughter) and respondent no. 6 (grandson) are
the sole surviving members of the deceased. Further, respondents
Paramjeet Kaur Chahal Vs. State and Ors.
Page No. 4
of 9
-- 4 of 9 --
no. 4, 5 and 6 also gave no objection in favour of the petitioner
on the same date, i.e. 27.07.2026.
3. Petitioner also summoned the record with respect to the
debts/ securities of the deceased. Respondent no. 3 filed a report
on 27.07.2026 stating that the deceased had 200 shares of the
company TATA Elxsi Limited and the value of the said shares is
Rs. 8,24,730/-. Further, a report was filed by respondent no. 2
stating that the deceased had 1344 shares of RIL against folio no.
030469534, having value of Rs. 17,17,000/- and 672 shares of
JIO Financial Services Limited having value of Rs. 1,57,000/-.
4. Petitioner also examined herself as PW-1. She tendered
her evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW-1/X. In
addition, she relied upon the following documents:
a) Aadhar Card is Ex. PW1/A,
b) Death certificate of her husband/son
of deceased – Ex.PW-1/B;
c) Death certificate of deceased is –
Ex.PW-1/C;
d) Death certificate of wife of
deceaased is – Ex.PW-1/D; and
e) SMC is Ex. PW-1/E.
5. No other witness was examined by the petitioner. Hence,
based on averments made by the petitioners as well as the
summoned record, a succession certificate is prayed with respect
Paramjeet Kaur Chahal Vs. State and Ors.
Page No. 5
of 9
-- 5 of 9 --
to the following debts/securities in the name of deceased S.
Kirpal Singh Chahal @ Kirpal Singh Chahal:
S. NO. Particulars Amount
1. 200 shares of TATA Elxsi
Limited qua folio no.
EXK0004685
Rs. 8,24,730/-.
2. 1344 shares of RIL
against folio no.
030469534
Rs. 17,17,000/-
3. 672 shares of JIO
Financial Services
Limited qua folio no.
030469534
Rs. 1,57,000/-.
6. I have heard the final arguments advanced by learned
Counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the record.
Section 373 subsection (3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
provides:
'
If the Judge cannot decide the right to the
certificate without determining questions of law or fact
which seem to be too intricate and difficult for
determination in a summary proceedings, he may
nevertheless grant a certificate to the petitioner if he
appears to be the person having prima facie the best title
thereto.'
Paramjeet Kaur Chahal Vs. State and Ors.
Page No. 6
of 9
-- 6 of 9 --
7. Aforesaid provision, therefore, says that the succession
certificate has to be given by the Court on the basis of “
prima
facie best title”. Petitioner must show that he has best title over
the debts/securities in question. Onus of proving the same,
therefore, is not on the same platform as that of criminal law or
civil law, it is less than that. So much so that even if there is a
dispute regarding the petitioner's right to claim a succession
certificate, it is the broad/prima facie title that has to be seen.
This is precisely because the parties' rights are not to be
determined by the Court issuing the succession certificate.
8. In the present case, the assertion regarding the death of
deceased S. Kirpal Singh Chahal @ Kirpal Singh Chahal is
supported by death certificate Ex.PW-1/C. Further, the said death
has also been verified by the concerned SDM. The petitioner has
also filed the death certificate of the wife of the deceased and her
husband/son of deceased. Furthermore, the respondents no. 4, 5
and 6 have already given their NOC in favour of the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner, being a class I legal heir is, prima facie,
entitled to the debts/securities of the deceased S. Kirpal Singh
Chahal @ Kirpal Singh Chahal. Accordingly, in view of the
above discussion, I find that there is no impediment to the grant
of the succession certificate in favour of the petitioner for
receiving the aforesaid debts/securities held in the name of
Paramjeet Kaur Chahal Vs. State and Ors.
Page No. 7
of 9
-- 7 of 9 --
deceased S. Kirpal Singh Chahal @ Kirpal Singh Chahal, as
mentioned in Para 5 of this Judgment.
9. Further, perusal of Section 375 of Indian Succession Act
shows that the imposition of a condition of security/surety/
indemnity bond is in order to indemnify person(s) or safeguard
the interest of such persons who may be entitled to the whole or
any part of the debt and security. However, recently, after
referring to various precedents, Hon’ble Delhi High Court laid
down the following principles in Arvind Nanda vs State CM(M)
265/2020 and CM APPL. 7880/2020 dt 28.02.2020:
(1) The imposition of a condition for furnishing an
indemnity/security is at the discretion of the Court.
(2) Whenever the Court is of the opinion that a
condition is required to be imposed due to any
debts and the fact that there is a possibility of other
claimants raising claims, the condition may be
imposed.
(3) In every case involving the grant of a succession
certificate, a mechanical approach of imposing a
condition for furnishing the surety/security and
insisting on the indemnity bond is not required.
(4) When an exemption from filing any surety is
sought, the Court has to consider the entire
conspectus and exercise its discretion depending on
the facts of each case, in accordance with law.
(5) As held by the ld. Division Bench of this Court
in Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), the imposition of
a condition is not mandatory.
Paramjeet Kaur Chahal Vs. State and Ors.
Page No. 8
of 9
-- 8 of 9 --
10. Hence, in view of the above legal position, no purpose
would be served by imposition of condition of surety.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed and succession
certificate be issued to petitioner for receiving the aforesaid
debts/securities of the deceased S. Kirpal Singh Chahal @ Kirpal
Singh Chahal as mentioned in para 5 on filing of indemnity bond
as per the value of debts/securities and requisite Court Fees in
terms of Article 12, Schedule I of the Court Fee Act, 1870 as
applicable to Delhi. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
11. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open
court today i.e. 17.09.2026
RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN
ACJ-CCJ-ARC/NDD, PHC
New Delhi: 17.09.2026
Paramjeet Kaur Chahal Vs. State and Ors.
Page No. 9
of 9
-- 9 of 9 --