Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 952 (PNJ)

Rajwant Kaur etc. v. General Public

2000-08-18

R.L.ANAND

body2000
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 13.10.1999 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, who, dismissed the appeal of Rajwant Kaur, Dhanna Singh and Gurnam Kaur and affirmed the order dated 28.2.1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ropar, who, disposed of the application for succession certificate filed by Rajwant Kaur, Dhanna Singh and Gurnam Kaur holding as follows :- "In view of my findings on the above issues, the petition partly succeeds and the Succession Certificate to the extent of 2/3rd share in the debts and securities of Harpreet Singh be issued in favour of petitioners No. 1 and 3 and for the remaining 1/3rd in favour of respondent No. 2, on their furnishing indemnity bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the petitioners and Rs. 75,000/- by respondent Narinder Kaur to indemnify any better claimant. The amount of petitioner No. 1 will be deposited in the bank in her name which should be drawn only with the permission of the Court. Respondent No. 2 will have to pay fees for the succession certificate to the extent of 2-1/2% of the amount of her share and excess succession fee deposited by the petitioners to that extent may be refunded to them". 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Smt. Rajwant Kaur, Dhanna Singh and Gurnam Kaur filed a petition and claimed the succession certificate for the debts and securities of Harpreet Singh who died on 21.2.1993. Petitioner No. 1 Smt. Rajwant Kaur is the minor daughter, Gurnam Kaur is the mother and Smt. Narinder Kaur, respondent No. 2 is the widow of the deceased. It appears that after the death of her husband, Narinder Kaur, left her daughter in the house of Dhanna Singh and Gurnam Kaur and she left the matrimonial home under a settlement dated 18.4.1993. The debts and securities for which the certificate was required is mentioned in the petition itself and the value of those debts and securities is about 2 lacs including gratuity and other benefits. 3. Notice of the petition for getting the succession certificate, was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 contested the petition and stated that she is also entitled to the estate of her husband being natural heir. She never abandoned the child. 3. Notice of the petition for getting the succession certificate, was given to the respondents. Respondent No. 2 contested the petition and stated that she is also entitled to the estate of her husband being natural heir. She never abandoned the child. She was forcibly compelled to leave the house of her in-laws and she never gave the divorce or dissolved the marriage. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the succession certificate as claimed ? If so in what shares ? OPR 2. Whether Narinder Kaur respondent is entitled to the succession certificate as claimed by her ? OPR 3. Relief. 5. The parties led evidence before the trial Court and the learned trial Court vide order dated 28.2.1996 partly allowed the petition in favour of petitioners No. 1 and 3 and part relief was given to respondent No. 2 Smt. Narinder Kaur. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.2.1996, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, who, affirmed the order of the trial Court for the reasons given in para No. 8 of the impugned order dated 13.10.1999, which are reproduced as under :- "The learned counsel for the applicants has fairly conceded that there is no pleading that Harpreet Singh had divorced his wife before his death, rather the plea is that after the death a writing took place on 18.4.1993 whereby respondent No. 2 left her in-laws leaving behind the child with her grand parents. I find that since at the time of death of Harpreet Singh, respondent No. 2, was legally wedded wife, therefore, she is the class-I heir. Even in the said agreement Ex.A.3 respondent No. 2 never gave up her rights and the claim in the property and rather it was agreed that she will get the claim whatever she is entitled to. Learned counsel for the applicants has heavily relied upon the nomination in favour of Dhanna Singh father of the deceased. I find that nomination give right only to collect the debts and securities. In any case, when the Class-I heirs have come forward, money is to go as per the provisions of Indian Succession Act. Mere nomination does not debar the Class-I heirs from collecting the money, debts and securities of the deceased. I find that nomination give right only to collect the debts and securities. In any case, when the Class-I heirs have come forward, money is to go as per the provisions of Indian Succession Act. Mere nomination does not debar the Class-I heirs from collecting the money, debts and securities of the deceased. Hence the findings of the trial Court on both the issues are affirmed. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs". 7. The petitioners are not satisfied with the orders of the Courts below. Hence the present revision. 8. I have heard Shri A.S. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri S.S. Bains, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon AIR 1940 Bombay 400, S. Venkatarama Iyer v. Sudarambal and submitted that Shri Harpreet Singh nominated the petitioners with respect to the debts and securities and this has the effect of a Will for the purpose of Section 2(h) of the Succession Act, 1925, and therefore, the petitioners alone are entitled to recover the amount to the exclusion of respondent No. 2, Smt. Narinder Kaur. Learned counsel further submitted that all the benefits accrued to the deceased from his service in the Army. The deceased during his service had made certain nominations required as per Army Rules. These nominations have been proved on record. These are signed by the deceased who at that time was in full senses and attested by the officials of the rank of Clerk and Subedar besides Captain. The declaration is in the shape of a Will and, therefore, the petitioners alone are entitled to the succession certificate. 10. In short, Shri Bakshi wanted to show that declaration has shown the intention on the part of the testator with respect to his property and he further desired how the intention of Harpreet Singh should be carried out after his death. 11. On the contrary, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the case which has been propounded by the petitioners now in revision, was never propounded before the trial Court. Respondent No. 2 is the legal heir. 11. On the contrary, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the case which has been propounded by the petitioners now in revision, was never propounded before the trial Court. Respondent No. 2 is the legal heir. The nomination executed by Shri Harpreet Singh does not give the petitioners an absolute right to the amount due and in support of his contention the counsel for the respondent relied upon AIR 1984 Supreme Court 346, Smt. Sarbati Devi and another v. Smt. Usha Devi. 12. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this revision. The nomination executed by Shri Harpreet Singh does not give the right to the petitioners to claim the entire amount. A mere nomination does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the nomination. A nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 is the legal heir being the widow of Shri Harpreet Singh and she is a Class-I heir like petitioners No. 1 and 3. 13. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is beyond the pleadings of the case. It was never the case set up by the petitioners that any declaration was given by the deceased and the deceased had the intention to exclude his wife after his death from his debts and securities. The so- called nomination which is being relied upon, was executed by the deceased when the deceased was unmarried. According to Section 5 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the movable property of the deceased in regulated by the law of the country of his domicile and as per the provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act the property of a male Hindu who dies intestate shall go to his Class-I heir at the first instance. Meaning thereby, the movable property of the deceased shall be shared by his mother, daughter and widow in equal shares. Therefore, the succession certificate has rightly been granted by the Courts below in these shares. 14. There is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.