Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 967 (JK)

Raj Kumari v. Kuldeep Raj

2017-10-28

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The Appellant has filed this appeal against order dated 16.08.2014 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 6 of the Succession Certificate Act, 1977, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated in the appeal that Dayawanti was survived by her only son Om Parkash, who was married with one Raj Kumari, and out of the wedlock of Om Parkash and Raj Kumari two male children Happy Sharma alias Shallu and Kuldeep Raj was born. Happy Sharma alias Shallu met with an accident on 13.11.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of Kuldeep Sharma and died, so mother of the deceased Raj Kumari and grandmother of the deceased Dayawanti who were solely dependent upon the deceased Happy Sharma alias Shallu, both filed a petition under Section 160 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. That while the trial was concluded and the case was for passing of the Award, grandmother of the deceased who was one of the petitioners in the claim petition namely, Dayawanti died on 15.09.2013 and on 29.01.2014 the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu was pleased to pass an Award in favour of both the petitioners i.e. Raj Kumari & Dayawanti amounting to Rs. 9,66,000/- and partitioned the award in equal shares in both the petitioners and the awarded amount has to be paid to the claimants alongwith simple interest @ 7.5% per month. The award was passed against the Insurance Company who deposited the awarded amount with the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal and Raj Kumari withdrawn the amount which comes in her share. Raj Kumari one of the petitioners in the claim petition who was only the best successor of the amount awarded to Dayawanti filed a petition under Section 6 of the Succession Certificate Act for issuance of Succession Certificate in her favour. The appellant sought succession certificate of amount of Rs 4,83,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum. Raj Kumari one of the petitioners in the claim petition who was only the best successor of the amount awarded to Dayawanti filed a petition under Section 6 of the Succession Certificate Act for issuance of Succession Certificate in her favour. The appellant sought succession certificate of amount of Rs 4,83,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum. The learned trial court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 6 of the Succession Certificate Act for the reason that the award was passed on 29.01.2014, when the deceased Dayawanti died on 15.04.2014 but in fact, it is 15.04.2013 and until and unless the necessary correction is not made in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award no certificate can be issued. The appellant challenges the order impugned, inter alia, on the following grounds: a. That as per the Succession Certificate Act, 1977 the trial court has to only see who could have the prima facie best title over the awarded amount. The appellate court cannot give any finding with regard to making correction in the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, so the trial court has extended its jurisdiction. b. That as per the order impugned it is understandable that the learned Sessions Judge has all the information that when Dayawanti died the legal heir of Dayawanti has to be brought on record. That there was only Raj Kumari who is petitioner before the trial court and also before this Hon'ble Court is only first legal heir entitled for successor of Dayawanti and there was no any first legal heir except Raj Kumari and Raj Kumari had also been already made petitioner before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal so when Dayawanti was also the petitioner in the claim petition she could not be made as respondent, so there was only Raj Kumari being legal heir there was no any first class legal heir. Kuldeep Raj who is the grandson of Dayawanti could not be made as legal heir as he was the second class legal heir. That otherwise also the trial court has not to see whether the legal heir has been made as a party before the claim tribunal or not. Kuldeep Raj who is the grandson of Dayawanti could not be made as legal heir as he was the second class legal heir. That otherwise also the trial court has not to see whether the legal heir has been made as a party before the claim tribunal or not. The scope for issuance of the succession certificate to the trial court was limited as when the respondent himself admitted that petitioner is only entitled for getting issuance of succession certificate and even after making publication in the newspaper no one came forward for claiming the amount awarded in favour of Dayawanti, the trial court has committed an illegality by dismissing the petition filed under Section 6 of the Succession Certificate Act, 1977. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 6 of the Succession Certificate Act, 1977 was dismissed, be set aside. 4. Objections stand filed on behalf of respondent stating therein that the brother of the respondent namely Happy Sharma alias Shallu died in an accident on 13.11.2010 so the mother and the grandmother of the respondent being the dependents of said Happy Sharma alias Shallu as the respondent was holding an independent family, those both mother and grandmother filed a petition under Section 166 & 140 of Motor vehicles Act for grant of compensation arising out of motor accident and the trial court i.e. Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jammu on dated 29.01.2014 was pleased to pass the Award in favour of Raj Kumari mother and Dayawanti grandmother of the deceased Happy Sharma alias Shallu. The grandmother of the respondent died on 15.09.2013 whereas the Motor Accidents claim Tribunal was pleased to pass the Award on 29.01.2014. The amount of the Award was fully deposited by the Insurance Company as the award was to be satisfied by the Insurance Company i.e., ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance, Rail Head Complex, Jammu (Insurer). The mother of the Appellant herein Raj Kumari filed a petition under Section 6 of Succession Certificate Act for issuance of Succession Certificate in her favour wherein the answering respondent stated that he has no objection in case the amount awarded in favour of his grandmother is given to his mother Raj Kumari. The mother of the Appellant herein Raj Kumari filed a petition under Section 6 of Succession Certificate Act for issuance of Succession Certificate in her favour wherein the answering respondent stated that he has no objection in case the amount awarded in favour of his grandmother is given to his mother Raj Kumari. Despite of that the Learned Trial court i.e., Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jammu has dismissed the petition filed by Raj Kumari for issuance of Succession Certificate. The mother of the respondent Raj Kumari being aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Jammu of dated 16.08.2014 filed the Appeal No. 61 of 2014 titled Raj Kumari Vs. Kuldeep Raj. 5. It is further stated in the objections that at the relevant time when Happy Sharma alias Shallu has expired there was only two persons in the family one mother and another grandmother of the deceased alive and the respondent and there was no any other person alive in the family and the respondent being holding independent family and not dependent on the deceased so the dependent was not made as party in the claim petition. The respondent has no right whatsoever to take money awarded in favour of his grandmother Dayawanti and the answering respondent has no objection in case the Appeal filed by Appellant Raj Kumari was allowed and succession certificate is issued in favour of the Appellant Raj Kumari. With the afore mentioned submissions, the respondent has prayed that the Appeal be allowed in favour of the Appellant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned order. 7. From the perusal of order of court below and award passed by MACT, Jammu, it is apparent that when award was passed on 29.01.2014, one of claimant namely Dayawnti had already died on 15.9.2013. So award was passed in favour of dead person. Thus, court below while dismissing the application for grant of succession certificate has held that unless necessary amendment is made in award, no such certificate can be issued. 8. Learned counsel for appellant has stated that there was only Raj Kumari (appellant), who is only first class legal heir entitled for succession of property of Dayawanti and there was no other first class legal heir except Raj Kumari; she was also one of petitioners before MACT, Jammu. 8. Learned counsel for appellant has stated that there was only Raj Kumari (appellant), who is only first class legal heir entitled for succession of property of Dayawanti and there was no other first class legal heir except Raj Kumari; she was also one of petitioners before MACT, Jammu. In this way, she was only entitled for award granted in favour of deceased-Dayawanti. 9. This argument is not at all sustainable, because had the fact of death been brought to knowledge of MACT before award is announced then no award could have been passed in her favour. Proceedings in succession certificate are summary in nature; complicated issue of fact cannot be decided. So, I do not find any illegality in order of court below. This appeal is dismissed.