Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 886 (PNJ)

Gopal Krishan v. General Public

2007-04-18

R.S.MADAN

body2007
Judgment 1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-3-1986 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar on a petition u/S. 372 of Indian Succession Act whereby he accepted the appeal of the petitioner and granted the succession certificate in favour of Baldev Krishan. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Baldev Krishan s/o Panna Lal filed an application u/S. 372 of the Indian Succession Act for issuing of succession certificate in respect of estate of Panna Lal deceased who died on 8-1-1981 at Amritsar. It is the case of the petitioner that Panna Lal had left behind him Baldev Krishan, his widow Phoollan Rani son Rakesh Kumar and daughter Usha Rani. In the said application it was averred that Phoollan Rani, Rakesh Kumar and Usha Rani had relinquished their claim in favour of Baldev Krishan for issuing of succession certificate. Upon notice the respondent filed a written statement making the claim for issuing of succession certificate in his favour. During the pendency of the petition an application was made by one Gopal Krishan that he is one of the legal heirs of the deceased and, therefore, he is entitled to 1/5th share in the estate of deceased Panna Lal. The said applicant was made a party to the petition as one of the respondents who filed a separate written statement claiming 1/5th share of the estate of deceased Panna Lal. On the pleading of the parties following issues were framed :- 1. Whether Gopal Krishan is one of the legal heirs of Panna Lal deceased ? OR 2. To what extent and shares the parties are entitled to the estate of the deceased ? OPP parties. 3. Relief. 3. Both the parties adduced the evidence in support of their claim. The finding of issue No. 1 was returned in favour of Gopal Krishan applicant holding him as son of Panna Lal and entitling him to 1/5th share in the estate of the deceased. While disposing of issue No. 2 the learned Sub Judge observed that relinquishment of claim by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of Baldev Krishan can be hit by so many laws e.g. Gift Act and it can create many complications. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of things that succession certificate should be issued in favour of Baldev Krishan, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of Baldev Krishan can be hit by so many laws e.g. Gift Act and it can create many complications. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of things that succession certificate should be issued in favour of Baldev Krishan, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and Gopal Krishan in accordance with their share in the estate of the deceased. Resultantly, the succession certificate was issued in favour of Baldev Krishan, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in equal share i.e. 1/5th each. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order of Sub-Judge First Class, Baldev Krishan filed an appeal before the District Judge which was disposed of by Sh. M. S. Sehmee, Additional District Judge, Amritsar on 7-3-1986. 5. The First Appellate Court while evaluating the evidence, observed that Gopal Krishan had relinquished his share in the joint Hindu Family property in favour of other members of the family for their benefit and the said relinquishment of right in the movable and immovable property in the Joint Hindu Family is permissible in view of the observation made by the Full Bench of Madras High Court in a case Chela Subana V/s. Chela Bala Suba Reddy, AIR (32) 1945 Madras 142 wherein it was observed that it is well settled law that a member of a joint Hindu Family governed by Metakshra law can relinquish his interest in the family estate but the relinquishment operates for the benefit of all the other members of the Joint Hindu Family. As a result thereof the succession certificate was issued in the name of Baldev Krishan in respect of the amount in question claimed by him on furnishing a security to the extent of the amount in question for indemnification of a better claim. 6. Gopal Krishan, if aggrieved by the present judgment may get the matter regarding his right to the estate of Panna Lal disposed of from the Civil Court. 7. I have gone through the relinquished deed Exhibit A/1 vide which Gopal Krishan son of Panna Lal had relinquished his interest in the joint Hindu family property during the lifetime of his father Panna Lal by accepting a sum of Rs. 5000/- in cash. The said relinquish deed was executed on 25-2-1980 and registered on 9-4-1980 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Amritsar. 5000/- in cash. The said relinquish deed was executed on 25-2-1980 and registered on 9-4-1980 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Amritsar. I have compared the signature of Gopal Krishan on the relinquish deed (Exhibit A/1) with the application moved by Gopal Krishan before the trial Court through his counsel to implead him as a party to the petition. Both these documents bear the signature of Gopal Krishan appellant. It is not a case where any fraud has been committed upon Gopal Krishan. Gopal Krishan out of his own free will himself has relinquished his share in favour of the other members of the family on payment of Rs. 5000/- during the lifetime of his father Panna Lal deceased. In other words, he has got himself separated from the family as he had already taken his share from the joint Hindu family property. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances appearing in the case there is no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.