Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1789 (PNJ)

Aman Lega v. Deepinder Singh

2012-12-10

A.N.JINDAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J. (Oral) - On the death of Lt. Col. Karnail Singh on 7.12.2009, the petitioners being his daughters, had filed a suit for partition claiming 1/4th share each out of the property left by him. Deepinder Singh Poonian-respondent No.1 son of Lt. Col. Karnail Singh had filed the written statement and claimed his sole ownership over the property on the basis of Will dated 30.10.2009 allegedly executed in his favour. Thereafter, Deepinder Singh Poonian filed an application for succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act’) 5.3.2010, which is still pending. 2. During the pendency of the said succession application, the petitioners were allowed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 16 lacs on 6.4.2010, 8.4.2010 and 15.6.2010 respectively. Then on the application of Deepinder Singh Poonian, the court, vide order dated 16.8.2010 (Annexure P/3), directed the petitioners to re-deposit the aforesaid amount. The petitioners moved an application for review of the said order before the trial court, which was dismissed on 23.12.2010 (Annexure P/4), which is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners were the nominees, therefore, they in their capacity of nominees had withdrawn that amount. There is no justification for re-deposit of that amount. In any case, the petitioners, being the natural heirs of Lt. Col. Karnail Singh, would be entitled to 1/4th share each by way of natural succession. Deepinder Singh Poonian is already occupying one kanal house which he is not accounting for. 4. It is further argued that the Will has been found to be forged, which will be ultimately proved in the case. The petitioners have already lodged an FIR against Deepinder Singh Poonian qua that. Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate, who was representing the petitioners, was not given any notice of the application regarding re-deposit, therefore, the order was passed without giving them an opportunity of hearing. Thus, finally, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since both the petitioners would ultimately be entitled to ½ share on account of natural succession, therefore, they cannot be directed to re-deposit the amount. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has urged that respondent being son of Lt. Col. Thus, finally, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since both the petitioners would ultimately be entitled to ½ share on account of natural succession, therefore, they cannot be directed to re-deposit the amount. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has urged that respondent being son of Lt. Col. Karnail Singh and having set up the Will dated 30.10.2009 which is still under adjudication in the civil suit, the petitioners were not entitled to withdraw the said amount. The main application under Section 372 of the Act is still to be decided and the status of the nominees is not more than trustees and they cannot withhold the amount for their own benefit and their rights to succession is yet to be decided in the proceedings under the Indian Succession Act as well as in the civil suit, where the Will is directly in question. 6. Heard. 7. Parties do not dispute that the civil suit regarding inheritance as well as application under Section 372 of the Act are pending in the Courts. The relationship of the petitioners as well as Deepinder Singh with the deceased and the setting up of the Will by the latter is also not in dispute. It is well settled that the status of the nominees is not more than that of a trustee and ultimately they have to deliver the said amount to the rightful owner. As such, the amount so withdrawn during the pendency of the application by them cannot be withheld by them. In any case, if the Will is proved, the said amount would go to Deepinder Singh Punian, otherwise, it would be divided as per natural succession. 8. Re-deposit of the amount withdrawn by the petitioners, during the pendency of the application so moved by Deepinder Singh Punian, was allowed on 16.8.2010 in the presence Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioners. No affidavit of Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate, has been filed in the Court, if he was not present and the order was passed in his absence. Even otherwise, presumption of truth is attached to the judicial proceedings, particularly qua the pres ence of the parties. This order dated 16.8.2010 was not challenged by way of appeal or revision. No affidavit of Mr. A.S. Chahal, Advocate, has been filed in the Court, if he was not present and the order was passed in his absence. Even otherwise, presumption of truth is attached to the judicial proceedings, particularly qua the pres ence of the parties. This order dated 16.8.2010 was not challenged by way of appeal or revision. The scope of review by the Civil Court is very limited qua only clerical mistakes, as such, it appears that even after the order was passed for re-deposit of the amount on 23.12.2010, the petitioners are still enjoying the said amount, which they are legally not entitled to keep any longer. 9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to deposit whole of the amount in the Court within two months. On deposit of the amount, the same would be deposited by the court in the bank in the shape of Fixed Deposit Receipts, which may incur interest and would be result of outcome of the proceedings under Indian Succession Act. However, it would be open to respondent No.1 to claim interest for the period prior to the deposit of the amount in the bank on conclusion of the decision of the said case.