Delhi High Court
Navin Sikand vs State & Ors. on 10 February, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 9/2013
% 10th February, 2014
NAVIN SIKAND ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE & ORS. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, Adv. of LR No.4 of
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By the impugned order of the Administrative Civil Judge-cum-
Additional Rent Controller (Central Delhi) dated 17.10.2012, the petition
seeking succession certificate to the debts and securities of the deceased
persons namely Sh. R.D.Sikand, Smt. Neera Sikand and Master Munish
Sikand (being husband, wife and son respectively) was dismissed inasmuch
as the petitioner Sh. Navin Sikand was having a later priority/entitlement as
legal heir as the son of the second wife of Sh. Amar Chand Sikand, father of
Sh. R.D.Sikand i.e Navin Sikand was only related by half blood to the legal
heirs of Sh. Amar Chand Sikand through his first wife Smt. Prakash Kaur,
FAO No. 9/2013 Page 1 of 4
and that legal heirs who were related by full blood; namely the real sisters of
Sh. R.D. Sikand; were alive at the time of death of Manish Sikand-the last
surviving member in the family of Sh. R.D. Sikand . To appreciate the facts,
the following family tree is relevant:-
Amar Chand
Sikand
Wife (1) Wife (2)
Prakash Kaur died
in 1936 Saraswati
Saristha R.D.Sikand (son) Vimla Raj Kumar Navin Sikand Promila Sikand
Bhakru(Daughter) Died on 30.5.98 (daughter) Died in (daughter)
(son)
died on 4.12.04 2007
Son:Pravin Bhakru Wife: Neera Sikand Son: Rajiv Kumar
Son:Anil Bhakru Died on 11.3.01
Son: Dhanesh Bhakru Son: Munish Sikand
Son: Rakesh
Son: Nitin Bhakru Died on 14.8.2003 Kumar
2. Learned counsel for the appellant states he has no grievance with the
impugned judgment when it dismissed the succession certificate petition
because the appellant/ petitioner in view of Section 18 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 would not have a right to the properties of Sh.
R.D.Sikand and his family members because he is only half blood, and since
at the time of the death of Sh. R.D.Sikand and his wife and son, the sisters of
Sh. R.D.Sikand namely Smt. Saristha Bhakru and Smt. Vimla Raj Kumar
were alive, however, what is argued is that once the succession certificate
FAO No. 9/2013 Page 2 of 4
petition was dismissed it could not be continued for the benefit of the
objector-Sh. Pravin Bhakru-respondent no.3(v)'s by fixing the case for
recording his evidence for proving the debts and securities of late Sh.
R.D.Sikand and his family members. I may note in the memo of parties,
there is a mistake and Sh. Pravin Bhakru who is shown as respondent
no.3(v), should be shown as respondent No.3, and in fact other legal heirs of
Ms. Saristha Bhakru should be shown as respondent nos. 4 to 6. Correct
memo of parties now be filed by the appellant to this effect.
3. I agree that once the succession certificate petition of the present
appellant was to be dismissed as petitioner was not having any locus standi
as sisters of Sh. R.D.Sikand were alive when his son Sh. Munish Sikand
expired on 14.8.2003, however, if there is an entitlement in the objector-Sh.
Pravin Bhakru to claim the succession certificate, that objector namely Sh.
Pravin Bhakru will have to file an independent petition for succession
certificate for claiming the debts and securities left behind by late Sh.
R.D.Sikand, and which thereafter devolved upon his wife Smt. Neera Sikand
and ultimately upon Sh. Munish Sikand, son of Sh. R.D.Sikand and Smt.
Neera Sikand, and who expired last on 14.8.2003.
4. I may state that I am making no comment in one way or the other on
the entitlement of Sh. Pravin Bhakru to the estate of Sh. R.D.Sikand and his
FAO No. 9/2013 Page 3 of 4
family members and this aspect will be decided in appropriate proceedings
which would be initiated by the said Sh. Pravin Bhakru/objector.
5. I may state that counsel for respondent no.3/Sh. Pravin Bhakru sought
to argue before me that appeal would not lie under Section 384 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 against the impugned judgment because it is only
when a succession certificate is refused that an appeal can be filed, however,
this argument is misconceived because by dismissing the petition for
succession certificate, obviously the succession certificate is refused and
thus this appeal is maintainable under Section 384 of the Indian Succession
Act.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed to the extent that the
succession certificate petition must revive, however, all proceedings in the
succession certificate petition will come to an end and the last four lines of
para-9 of the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2012 are also quashed
whereby the case was fixed for objector's/Sh. Pravin Bhakru's evidence.
Appeal is accordingly disposed of and dismissed, subject to aforesaid
observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
FEBRUARY 10, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
