Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1488 (PNJ)

Jagdish Lal Sharma v. Nirmala

2008-08-29

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2008
Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh as affirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh allowing an application moved under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act filed by the respondent. 2. Respondent Nirmala Devi sought succession Certificate in respect of her deceased daughter-in-law Sunita Sharma in which the petitioner and his wife moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as a party which was allowed and the petitioners were impleaded as respondents in the said case. It claimed by the respondents that Sunita Sharma daughter of the petitioners was employed as Assistant Superintendent, Telegraph Traffic with the Central Telegraph Office Central, Chandigarh. She was married to Manohar Lal son of Nirmala and she committed suicide on 31.5.108 at Ambala. She was issueless at the time of her death. Manohar Lal husband of Sunita Sharma also committed suicide on 25.8.1988. 3. It was claimed that Sunita Sharma had an amount of Rs. 34,102/- in her account on account of gratuity, general provident fund and payment payable under the Group Insurance Scheme. 4. The case set up by the respondent was that the property in question devolved upon Manohar Lal and on account of his death she being the mother was entitled to claim the same and thus, claimed succession certificate. 5. The petitioners claimed that the husband of Sunita Sharma tortured her and forced her to commit suicide and a case under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A IPC was registered against him vide FIR No. 98. It was claimed that Manohar Lal could have not succeeded her due to torture committed by him on his wife. It was also claimed that the amount due towards the deceased from her department was by way of General Provident Fund, Group Insurance Scheme and by way of gratuity and under the Rules, it were the petitioners who were entitled to receive the amount and thus, the petitioners sought succession certificate in this regard. 6. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial court : i) Whether the applicant is entitled to the estate of Sunita Sharma ? OPA ii) Whether the applicant has no locus standi to file the present application ? 6. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial court : i) Whether the applicant is entitled to the estate of Sunita Sharma ? OPA ii) Whether the applicant has no locus standi to file the present application ? OPR iii) Whether application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR iv) Whether application is not maintainable ? OPR v) Whether respondent are entitled for the estate of Sunita Sharma? OPR vi) Relief. 7. On Issue No. 1, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the property of intestate Hindu deceased lady can be dealt with either in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act or in accordance with Dowry Prohibition Act. Dowry Prohibition Act takes care of only dowry articles of married deceased lady, therefore the said Act was not relevant in the present case. As in the present case dowry articles of deceased Sunita Sharma are not the subject-matter of present proceedings. Thus, it was held that the amount lying in her account was to be dealt with as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. It was, thus, observed that as on her death property vested in her husband immediately after the death the property is to be treated to be that of Manohar Lal and thus, would devolve upon the respondent herein. 8. Learned trial court also observed that Sunita Sharma died within 7 months of her marriage with the son of the respondent and, she died unnatural death. The claim that the property was to be inherited by the petitioners herein was not accepted. The learned trial court held that it was only dowry articles which could have gone to the patents of the girl and not other property. The learned trial court also came to the conclusion that the Rules of the Central Government were merely guidelines and could not have overriding effect on the law of land specified is Hindu Succession Act. The learned trial court also observed that the Rules also did not in any way provide that the amount due towards a deceased employee by way of Group Insurance and gratuity etc. was to go to the parents of the deceased employee in the presence of her husband. 9. It may be noticed that Sunita Sharma had nominated the petitioners as her nominees under the said Scheme. 10. was to go to the parents of the deceased employee in the presence of her husband. 9. It may be noticed that Sunita Sharma had nominated the petitioners as her nominees under the said Scheme. 10. The (earned trial court by applying the principles of Hindu Succession Act decided issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent. Issues No. 2,3 and 4 were disposed of having not pressed. In view of finding on issue No. 1, issue No. 5 was also decided in favour of the respondent. 11. Consequently, the petition was allowed and succession certificate was ordered to be issued in favour of the respondent. She was, however, directed to furnish surety bond. 12. Petitioners filed an appeal. Learned lower appellate Court also held that as the provisions of Hindu Succession Act would apply to the present case then on the death of Sunita Sharma, her husband was to inherit the property and thereafter, it is the respondent who was entitled to succession certificate, thus, dismissed the appeal. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned courts below firstly on the ground that the husband of Sunita Sharma was not entitled to inherit her property in view of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act which bars the inheritance of property by a person who is guilty of murdering of that person. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act to support the contention that the presumption was required to be drawn against late Manohar Lal as Sunita Sharma died within 7 months of her marriage. Thus, it was claimed that in view of the provisions referred to above Manohar Lai was not entitled to inherit her property and consequently no succession certificate could have been issued in favour of the respondent. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the present case the proceedings against Manohar Lai were dropped due to his death and therefore, it could not be said that he was acquitted of the charge. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the present case the proceedings against Manohar Lai were dropped due to his death and therefore, it could not be said that he was acquitted of the charge. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court is the case of Rajan Rai vs. State of Bihar, 2005(3) Apex Criminal 669, wherein Honble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that when the prosecution is dropped due to the death of an accused it cannot amount to an acquittal. 15. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vallikannu vs. R. Singaperumal & Anr., 2005(2) RCR(Civil) 603, to contend that if son murders his father, the wife and son of the murderer would also not be entitled to inherit the property. 16. However, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted as Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act would come into operation only in case the accused was convicted of the charge and not merely for being charged with the offence. Even though it could not be said that Manohar Lal stood acquitted of the charge still is cannot also be held that he stood convicted. 17. It was thereafter contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount lying in the account of Sunita Sharma was on account of General Provident Fund, Gratuity and Group Insurance Scheme and the said amount was not to be governed by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act but by way of relevant Rules. 17. It was thereafter contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount lying in the account of Sunita Sharma was on account of General Provident Fund, Gratuity and Group Insurance Scheme and the said amount was not to be governed by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act but by way of relevant Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under the General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960, family has been defined to read as under: "(c) "Family" means - (i) in the case of a male subscriber, the wife or wives, parents, children, minor brothers, unmarried sisters, deceased sons widow and children and where no parents of the subscriber is alive, a paternal grandparent: Provided that if a subscriber proves that his wife has been judicially separated from him or has ceased under the customary law of the community, to which she belongs to be entitled to maintenance she shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer a member of the subscribers family in matters to which these rules relate unless the subscriber subsequently intimates, in writing to the Accounts Officer that she shall continue to be so regarded; (ii) in the case of a female subscriber, the husband, parents, children, minor brothers, unmarried sisters, deceased sons widow and children and where no parents of the subscriber is alive, a paternal grandparent: Provided that if a subscriber by notice in writing to the Accounts Officer expression her desire to exclude her husband from her family, the husband shall henceforth be deemed to be no longer a member of the subscribers family in matters to which these rules relate, unless the subscriber subsequently cancels such notice in writing. Note : "child" means a legitimate child and includes an adopted child, where adoption is recognized by the personal governing the subscriber." 18 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, is that the respondent did not fall within the definition of "family" to claim the amount due under the General Provident Fund. Note : "child" means a legitimate child and includes an adopted child, where adoption is recognized by the personal governing the subscriber." 18 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, is that the respondent did not fall within the definition of "family" to claim the amount due under the General Provident Fund. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the Rule governing the payment of Gratuity and in the said Rules again the family his been define, as under :- "(6) For the purposes of this rule and Rules 51, 52 and 53, family, in relation to a Government servant, means - (i) wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male Government servant, (ii) husband including judicially separated husband in the case of a female Government servant, (iii) sons including step sons and adopted sons. (iv) unmarried daughters including step daughters and adopted daughters, (v) widowed daughters including step daughters and adopted daughters, (vi) father {including adoptive parents in the case of individuals whose personal (viij mother (law permits adoption. (viii) brothers below the age of eighteen years including step brothers, (ix) unmarried sisters and widowed sisters including step sisters, (x) married daughters, and (xi) children of pre-deceased son." 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter referred to Rule 51 of the Gratuity Rules to contend that it is only the surviving members of the family who would be entitled to share the gratuity in equal shares. Reference was also made to the Group Insurance Scheme of the Central Government which provides that the amount due has to be disbursed as per the nomination in the Provident Fund and Central Provident Fund. 20. In the present case it is not disputed that the petitioners were the nominee of Sunita Sharma. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Chander Kanta vs. Monika, 2000(4) SCT 635 (P&H) to contend that with respect to claim of pension, gratuity and Group Insurance Scheme the provisions of Hindu Succession Act are not applicable. Para Nos. 21 to 23 of the judgment in the case of Chander Kanta vs. Monika (supra), read as under: "21. Para Nos. 21 to 23 of the judgment in the case of Chander Kanta vs. Monika (supra), read as under: "21. Smt. Sarbati Devis case (supra) will not apply so far as the amount of group insurance scheme is concerned, as there the Honble Supreme Court was concerned with the disbursement of insurance proceeds of is policy taken on the life of the assured. The Honble Supreme Court held that the insurance proceeds shall be disbursed according to the law of succession. So far as Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980 is concerned that is a special scheme introduced by the Government. The scheme is intended to provide for the Central Government Employees, at a low cost and on a wholly contributory and self-financing basis, the twin benefits of an insurance cover to help their families in the event of death in service and as lump sum payment to augment their resources on retirement. 22. It would bear repetition that the definition of family as given in Rule 2 (iii) of the General Provident Fund (Cenral Services) Rules, 1960 brought out above is applicable to the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980. Family pension also goes to the widow alone. Widow is entitled to benefits under the Army Group Insurance Scheme, 1976. Parents of the deceased are entitled benefits if there is no widow and children. I am supported in this view by a judgment in Swaran Kaurand another vs. Dalbir Kaur and others. 23. Devolution of these accruals will be governed not by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act but by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972, Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980 and General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960. Hindu Succession Act deals with succession to the property which the deceased was holding during his life time whatever accrued to the deceased that accrued to the deceased because he was serving the affairs of the Government. These accruals are mere benefits." 22. Hindu Succession Act deals with succession to the property which the deceased was holding during his life time whatever accrued to the deceased that accrued to the deceased because he was serving the affairs of the Government. These accruals are mere benefits." 22. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Dock Labour Board vs. Smt. Sandhya Mitra, AIR 1985 SC 996 to contend that Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has an overriding effect overall other Acts including the Hindu Succession Act and thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the learned court below committed an error in granting succession certificate in favour of the respondent instead of the same being granted to the petitioners. 23. There is force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 24. Once the provisions of Hindu Succession Act are not applicable to the Provident Fund, Gratuity and Group Insurance Scheme then the same has to be governed by the Rules governing the Provident Fund, Gratuity and Group Insurance Scheme. As per the said Rules it is the surviving family members who are entitled to receive the said amount. It cannot be disputed that it is the petitioners who are the surviving members to receive the amount lying in the account of Sunita Sharma. 25. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and it is held that the petitioners would be entitled to claim the amount under Provident Fund, Gratuity and Group Insurance Scheme.