Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 573 (DEL)

Ramesh Kumar v. State & Ors.

2016-02-02

VALMIKI J.MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. 1. This testamentary case seeks letters of administration with respect to the estate of the deceased Sh. Thakur Dass Rakheja. Petitioner is the real nephew i.e. sister’s son of late Sh. Thakur Dass Rakheja. 2. Late Sh. Thakur Dass Rakheja died at Pithora Garh, Uttrakhand on 17/18.8.1998. Deceased was however a permanent resident of flat no. I/277, Block-I, Naraina, New Delhi. 3. Sh. Thakur Dass Rakheja died intestate and not leaving behind any issue. The mother of the petitioner was the real sister of the deceased. The brothers of the petitioner, the children of the deceased brother of the petitioner, widow of other deceased brother, as also the sisters of the petitioner, have been arrayed as respondent nos. 2 to 7 to this petition, and who are represented by advocates. The respondent nos. 2 to 7 have filed no objection for grant of letters of administration to the petitioner. 4. In view of the fact that deceased Sh. Thakur Dass Rakheja died intestate, his estate will be divided among a total of six parts being the four nephews and two nieces, petitioner being one nephew, respondent no.2 being another nephew, husband of respondent no.3 being one other nephew and father of respondent nos. 4 and 5 being the fourth nephew. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 are the nieces of the deceased and real sisters of the petitioner. Therefore, the estate of the deceased Sh. Thakur Dass Rakheja will be divided in a total of six parts with petitioner getting one share, respondent no.2 getting one share, respondent no.3 getting one share, respondent no.4 and 5 together getting one share, respondent no. 6 getting one share and finally respondent no.7 getting one share. 5. The estate of the deceased has been shown in Schedule A of the plaint and which has been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW-1/6. This Schedule A consists of two properties, one being flat no.I/277, Block-I, Naraina, New Delhi and second being plot no. 831, Sector-45, Gurgaon, Haryana. I may note that there is a typing mistake in the schedule qua the number of Gurgaon property and the correct number is plot no. 831, Sector-45, Gurgaon, Haryana. 6. This Schedule A consists of two properties, one being flat no.I/277, Block-I, Naraina, New Delhi and second being plot no. 831, Sector-45, Gurgaon, Haryana. I may note that there is a typing mistake in the schedule qua the number of Gurgaon property and the correct number is plot no. 831, Sector-45, Gurgaon, Haryana. 6. It is with respect to these two immovable properties that the letters of administration have to be granted noting that with respect to the movable properties a succession certificate case was filed by the father of respondent nos. 4 and 5, and this succession certificate case was allowed in terms of the Judgment dated 8.8.2001 of the concerned Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi and pursuant to which the necessary succession certificate was issued. Certified copies of these proceedings and succession certificate have been filed on the record of this Court. 7. Besides the fact that respondent nos. 2 to 7 have given their no objection, petitioner has stepped into the witness box and proved the case by filing affidavit by way of evidence. 8. In view of the above, letters of administration are granted in favour of the petitioner with respect to the estate of the deceased Sh. Thakur Dass Rakheja being the two aforesaid immovable properties. Letters of administration will be issued in favour of the petitioner on valuation being accepted by the Registry of this Court of the two properties and with respect to which valuations of the two properties, petitioner will be liable to pay appropriate court fees. Petitioner will also execute the necessary administrative bond as also surety bond for the letters of administration which are granted. I may also note that valuation report with respect to two properties has already been received from the concerned authorities as shown from the Orders passed by this Court on 1.6.2012 and 6.1.2014. 9. Petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations.