JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Sri J. Nagar, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and Sri Ashutosh Vaish for the contesting defendant/respondent. Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava has appeared for HDFC bank. 2. This testamentary case has been instituted by the widow of deceased namely Smt. Saumya Pande and her minor son Master Harsh Middha for issuance of letters of administration in respect of the estate of Late Prashant Middha, son of Sri Narendra Kumar, R/o Yantra 2204, Paramount Symphony, Crossing Republic near A.B.E.S. Institute, Ghaziabad who has died on 9.5.2015 at Ghaziabad. It is stated that the deceased was a resident of Ghaziabad and has died intestate leaving behind the petitioners i.e. wife and minor son, as well as his mother Smt. Usha Middha as his next of kin to succeed his estate. Prayer has been made to issue letter of administration to administer the estate of the deceased. 3. An affidavit of valuation has also been filed, showing the properties left behind by the deceased. One of the properties left behind is the amount to which the deceased was entitled to receive from his employer M/s. Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. The estimated total valuation of the property is Rs. 46,83,177/-. By way of an application filed on 1.4.2016 it is stated that petitioners have learnt that during his lifetime the deceased had purchased a shop in la gracia complex, Ghaziabad and a residential apartment No. 2204 on 22nd Floor in Multistory Building known as Yantra, built on housing plot No. 6 in the township known as Crossing Republic, Dundaheda, Ghaziabad and letters of administration is also sought in respect of such immovable property. 4. On the presentation of the petition, notices were directed to be issued to the Administrator General U.P. as well as to the Board of Revenue, U.P. 5. Pursuant to the order passed, the citation of the petition was also published in two newspapers ‘Amar Ujala’ (Hindi) and ‘Pioneer’ (English). An affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner. 6. The Administrator General and the Board of Revenue have not filed any objection. 7. An objection has been filed on behalf of Smt. Usha Middha wife of Sri Narendra Kumar and Sri Narendra Kumar son of late Jankidas, parents of the deceased opposing the prayer made for grant of letter of administration to the petitioners. 6. The Administrator General and the Board of Revenue have not filed any objection. 7. An objection has been filed on behalf of Smt. Usha Middha wife of Sri Narendra Kumar and Sri Narendra Kumar son of late Jankidas, parents of the deceased opposing the prayer made for grant of letter of administration to the petitioners. A further affidavit has been filed by them during hearing of the matter on 14.3.2018, which shall be dealt with later. In terms of the rules of Court as the petition is contested, it has been tried as a regular suit. 8. The Registrar General of the Court has certified under Rule 8 of Chapter XXX of the Rules of the Court that he has received no intimation from any other High Court or District Court of any grant of probate of any Will or Letters of Administration of the property and credits of the abovenamed deceased throughout the territory of India. Hence the present petition is the first and the only petition seeking grant of Letters of Administration to the estate and credits of the deceased. 9. It would, however, be appropriate to notice the averments made in Para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition for grant of letter of administration, in respect of the estate of the deceased Prashant Middha, which states as under : “4. That the deceased left him surviving the following as his next of kin to succeed his estate : (i) Smt. Saumya Pande, wife of late Prashant Middha, resident of Yantra 2204, Paramount Symphony, Crossing republic, near A.B.E.S. Institute Ghaziabad. (ii) Smt. Usha Middha, wife of Sri Narendra Kumar,resident of Yantra 2204,Paramount Symphony, Crossing republic, near A.B.E.S. Institute Ghaziabad. (iii) Master Harsh Middha (minor), son of lte Prashant Middha, resident of Yantra 2204, Paramount Symphony, Crossing republic, near A.B.E.S. Institute Ghaziabad”. 10. In the objection filed on behalf of the parents of the deceased, following averments are made in para-6 in reply to para-3 : “6. That the contents of paragraph 3 of the petition are not admitted as stated and as such denied, however, it is further very respectfully submitted that the heirs as mentioned in paragraph under reply are not at all disputed but the name of the deponent was wilfully not been impleaded in the list of heirs/successors, as been presented before the Hon’ble Court, only to mislead the Hon’ble Court”. 11. From the admitted pleadings on record, it is not in issue that petitioner No. 1 is the widow of deceased while petitioner No. 2 is his minor son, under the guardianship of her mother i.e. petitioner No. 1. Facts, to this extent are admitted in the objection. It is however stated that the father also has a share. Deceased admittedly was a Hindu and general rule of succession in case of males, as is provided in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 shall govern rules of succession in the case of males. Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 are reproduced : “8. General rules of succession in the case of males.—The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter— (a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule; (b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule; (c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and (d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased. 9. Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule.—Among the heirs specified in the Schedule, those in class I shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs; those in the first entry in class II shall be preferred to those in the second entry; those in the second entry shall be preferred to those in the third entry; and so on in succession. 10. Distribution of property among heirs in class I of the Schedule.—The property of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in class I of the Schedule in accordance with the following rules:— Rule 1.— The intestate’s widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the widows together, shall take one share. Rule 2.— The surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share. Rule 3.— The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased son or each pre-deceased daughter of the intestate shall take between them one share. Rule 2.— The surviving sons and daughters and the mother of the intestate shall each take one share. Rule 3.— The heirs in the branch of each pre-deceased son or each pre-deceased daughter of the intestate shall take between them one share. Rule 4.— The distribution of the share referred to in Rule 3— (i) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased son shall be so made that his widow (or widows together) and the surviving sons and daughters gets equal portions; and the branch of his predeceased sons gets the same portion; (ii) among the heirs in the branch of the pre-deceased daughter shall be so made that the surviving sons and daughters get equal portions.” 12. The schedule appended to Section 8 of the Act provides for heirs in Class I and Class II. Son; widow and mother are included in Class I, while the father of deceased hindu male falls in Class II. By virtue of Section 8(a) and (b) of the Act, the property of male hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in Class I of the schedule and only in absence of a heir in Class I can it devolve upon the heir specified in Class II of the schedule. Since heirs specified in Class I are available in the present case, the father will not have any share in the property of his deceased son. Accordingly, the property of the deceased would devolve upon the petitioners i.e. widow of deceased and his minor son, under the guardianship of his mother, one third each, whereas the mother of the deceased would also get one third share as per the applicable law of succession. 13. Affidavit of valuation has been filed specifying the schedule of property left behind by the deceased. It includes three bank accounts, a car, post death dues receivable from the employer of the deceased M/s. Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. etc. The petitioner contends that some amount from such accounts have been withdrawn by the father of the deceased, which fact finds support from the affidavit filed by the HDFC bank. It is stated by the bank that a joint account was maintained with it consisting of the deceased and Sri Narendra Kumar (father of deceased), in either or survivor mode, with petitioner No. 1 recorded as nominee. It is stated by the bank that a joint account was maintained with it consisting of the deceased and Sri Narendra Kumar (father of deceased), in either or survivor mode, with petitioner No. 1 recorded as nominee. It is stated that the bank had no information about the death of deceased and therefore, withdrawl of amount after 9.5.2015 was allowed in favour of Narendra Kumar and the total available balance is Rs. 674.17. In para-9 it is stated that Saving Bank Account in State Bank of India, Panchsheel, Ghaziabad No. 30715504049 is a joint account in the name of late Prashant Middha, Narendra Kumar and Mrs. Usha Middha. It is also stated that rest of the account relates to the services of the deceased in which the deponent and his wife being legal heir, are entitled to get share. An affidavit has been filed stating that the employer of deceased has proposed to apportion the amount payable to the deceased in the ratio of 1/3 each for the wife, minor son and mother. The details of other properties have also been mentioned. 14. While hearing in the matter was going on a further objection has been filed before the Court stating that objectors are old age parents of the deceased who are being victimized by the petitioner, by filing First Information Report as Case Crime No. 811 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 I.PC., Police Station Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. In para 5 it is stated that the deceased was married earlier to some other lady which relationship ended in a divorce, and it is thereafter that deceased married the petitioner and that estate of deceased be distributed accordingly. It is also stated that the deceased had taken loan from HDFC Bank but the details of it have not been brought on record. It is further stated that loans have been taken from other relatives also by the deceased but such amounts were not returned. It is stated that respondent No. 1 is 87 years old while respondent No. 2 is 83 years old and have no other income except the estate of the deceased. It is further stated in para 15 that there were talks of amicable settlement which ultimately failed. As per such settlement a sum of Rs. It is stated that respondent No. 1 is 87 years old while respondent No. 2 is 83 years old and have no other income except the estate of the deceased. It is further stated in para 15 that there were talks of amicable settlement which ultimately failed. As per such settlement a sum of Rs. 22 lacs was to be paid to the petitioner and that the respondents are willing to pay agreed amount provided criminal cases instituted are withdrawn. 15. So far as the lodging of First Information Report by the petitioner is concerned, the same is not relevant for the present proceedings. The averment that a compromise had been arrived at is also noticed only to be rejected, inasmuch as no such compromise has been brought before the Court. Although allegations are made to the effect that loan was taken by the deceased from HDFC bank, or that the deceased had taken personal loans from relatives etc, but its details are not brought on record. It is however settled in law that if there are any dues payable by the deceased, the same shall be remitted from the estate of deceased, and the person to whom Letter of Administration is issued shall be liable to pay such amount from the estate of the deceased. The affidavits filed on behalf of respondents also refers to certain other properties including gold ornaments etc. which are allegedly in the possession of the petitioner but details in respect thereof are also not on record. 16. From the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the relationship between the petitioner widow and the objectors in-laws are embittered. Admittedly, the deceased has died without leaving any will and the devolution of estate would take place in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act as well as Hindu Succession Act. The parties are in delicate phase inasmuch as petitioner No. 1 is a young widow who has to look after minor child, while respondents are elderly persons. Despite endeavour of the Court the parties have not been able to amicably resolve their dispute. The bond which tied the parties i.e. deceased, has departed. The parties are in delicate phase inasmuch as petitioner No. 1 is a young widow who has to look after minor child, while respondents are elderly persons. Despite endeavour of the Court the parties have not been able to amicably resolve their dispute. The bond which tied the parties i.e. deceased, has departed. Interest of the parties will have to be safeguarded by this Court in terms of the applicable principles of law, at the earliest, particularly as it is alleged both by the petitioners and the objector/respondents that they had only deceased to take care of them and none else. A long drawn litigation must therefore be avoided in the interest of parties. 17. The share of parties has already been determined as 1/3 each for the wife, minor son and mother of the deceased. The only question that requires consideration is as to whether a letter of administration be issued to the petitioners in respect of estate of deceased? 18. Petitioner No. 2 is a minor and, therefore, cannot be considered for the purpose. The only claimant left for issuance of letter of administration is the widow of deceased i.e. petitioner No. 1.Specific plea of petitioner No. 1 that she is the widow of deceased is admitted to the respondents. Although objection has been filed in the petition filed for issuing letter of administration, by the respondents, but they have not prayed for issuance of letter of administration to them. The only concern is their share in the estate of deceased and the liabilities left behind by him. The wife has undertaken to liquidate all dues payable by the deceased from the estate left behind by the deceased and to apportion the estate of deceased in the ratio of 1/3 each for herself, the minor son and the mother. 19. In view of the admission by the respondents about petitioner No. 1 being the widow of the deceased, the present suit is liable to be decreed under Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code. The letter of administration is liable to be issued to petitioner No. 1. 20. However, as interest of minor and elder mother is also involved, I am inclined to put fetters upon the letter of administration issued to the petitioner so as to protect their interest. 21. The letter of administration is liable to be issued to petitioner No. 1. 20. However, as interest of minor and elder mother is also involved, I am inclined to put fetters upon the letter of administration issued to the petitioner so as to protect their interest. 21. In such circumstances, the suit instituted for issuance of letter of administration is decreed and a letter of administration in respect of estate of late Prashant Middha, who died on 9.5.2015 at Ghaziabad, is issued in the name of Smt. Saumya Pande wife of late Prashant Middha, R/o Yantra 2204, Paramount Symphony, Crossing Republic near A.B.E.S. Institute, Ghaziabad. The letter of administration shall include all property of the deceased mentioned in the schedule of valuation, subject to following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall apply for release of the post death dues payable to the deceased with the employer of the deceased M/s. Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. alongwith letter of administration. The employer shall issue a cheque containing two third amount lying in the account of the deceased in the name of petitioner Smt. Saumya Pande, towards 1/3 share to her and towards 1/3 share for the minor in her capacity as the natural guardian of the minor. (ii) One half share of minor son would be invested by the petitioner in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank till the minor attains the age of majority. The remaining half amount would be deposited in a interest bearing account in a nationalised bank and the amount of interest would be utilised for the welfare of the minor till he attains the age of majority. (iii) The employer shall issue a cheque of an amount of one third of the post death dues of the deceased lying with the employer in the name of Smt. Usha Middha i.e. mother of the deceased. This cheque shall be delivered to the respondent mother forthwith. The other properties, as per the schedule of valuation be apportioned in the respective share of the parties, indicated above, by the administrator and the account in respect thereof shall be submitted within three months of the date of issuance of letter of administration under Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act. The other properties, as per the schedule of valuation be apportioned in the respective share of the parties, indicated above, by the administrator and the account in respect thereof shall be submitted within three months of the date of issuance of letter of administration under Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act. (iv) The Court fees shall be paid by the petitioner for the entire amount and the 1/3 share to be borne by the mother shall be adjusted from the balance amount to which the mother is entitled from the other properties of the deceased. 22. Accordingly, Letter of Administration is granted to the estate and credits of the deceased late Prashant Middha in favour of the petitioner Smt. Saumya Pande subject to the applicant filing an undertaking to comply with the conditions indicated above and subject to the Registrar General certifying payment of Court fee as contemplated under Rule 9 of Chapter XXX of the Rules of the Court. The petition is allowed.