Smt. Krishna Goel vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 1699 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No.322/2012

%                                                    28th March, 2014

SMT. KRISHNA GOEL                                           ....Appellant
                          Through:       None.


                          VERSUS
STATE                                                       ...... Respondent
                          Through:       None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           No one appeared for the appellant on 12.4.2013. It was noted

that the matter is taken up for the third time but counsel for the appellant did

not appear and only a request for pass over was made by the proxy counsel.

This matter was adjourned for 14.5.2013 subject to costs of Rs.3,000/-with

Delhi Legal Services Authority. Thereafter, the matter could not be listed

on the date fixed i.e 14.5.2013 as costs were not deposited. The matter is

therefore listed today on an office note. Besides the fact that no one appears

for the appellant and even the costs of Rs.3,000/- have not been deposited.

2.           By the impugned judgment, the petition filed by the appellant

under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession
FAO No.322/2012                                                   Page 1 of 2
 certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased Shakuntla Sukhnandan

who expired at New Delhi on 24.2.2010 was dismissed.

3.           The court below notes that admittedly the appellant/petitioner

was not having any blood relationship with the deceased Shakuntla

Sukhnandan. Therefore, petitioner cannot be a beneficiary of the estate of

the deceased Shakuntla Sukhnandan as she is not a legal heir of the deceased

Shakuntla Sukhnandan.

4.           I find nothing illegal in the judgment of the court below dated

11.4.2012 by which the petition for succession certificate has been dismissed

inasmuch as it is only the legal heir on whom the estate devolves who can

apply for a succession certificate. Besides the appellant/petitioner not being

related to the deceased Shakuntla Sukhnandan, the petitioner/appellant has

not propounded any Will in her favour with respect to the estate of the

deceased Shakuntla Sukhnandan.

5.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the

same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




MARCH 28, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne