Mrs.Alka Puri vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 2315 Del

*                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                               Test Cas No.42 of 2006

                                      Decided on : May 07 , 2014

MRS.ALKA PURI                                       ...... Petitioner
                       Through:     Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta with Ms.Sahiba
                                    Pantel, Advs.

                       Versus

STATE                                                ...... Respondent
                       Through:     None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is a petition for grant of Letters of Administration in respect

of the estate of deceased Ravindra Nath.

2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the present petitioner

has claimed herself to be an adopted daughter of late Ravindra Nath and

late Smt.Saroj Sharma. It has been alleged in the petition that Ravindra

Nath expired on 29.12.2005 while as Smt.Saroj Sharma expired on

30.12.2005. The aforesaid deceased couple did not have a natural child

and, accordingly, when the present petitioner, who was just 13½ years old

was adopted being the Saroj Sharma's sister's daughter. This was done to

look after the deceased persons during their old age.

3. It has been further alleged in the petition that after an adoption

deed Ex.PW1/3 was drawn, the petitioner came to Delhi and continued to

live with the deceased Ravindra Nath and Saroj Sharma at C-32,

Gulmohar Park, New Delhi, till the time she got married. It has been

further stated that the aforesaid property was the self-acquired property of

Ravindra Nath and apart from the aforesaid property, he has left behind

various other movable and immovable assets; the details of which are

given in Schedules I, II & III consisting of saving accounts, car, house,

policies and certificates with Unit Trust of India.

4. It has been alleged that Ravindra Nath had four brothers, namely,

Surender Sharma, Virendra Sharma, Shashi Sharma and Vinod Harsh,

apart from one sister Shakuntala Dikshit and all of them except Shashi

Sharma have given their 'No Objection' to the grant of Letters of

Administration in favour of the petitioner. So far as Shashi Sharma is

concerned, he was served, however, he has chosen not to file any

objection despite service.

5. In support of the petition, the petitioner has filed her own affidavit

Ex.PW1/X in which she has not only supported the averments made in

the petition but has also proved the documents like Death Certificate of

late Ravindra Nath 'Ex.PW1/1', Death Certificate of her mother late

Saroj Sharma 'Ex.PW1/2', certified copy of Adoption Deed 'Ex.PW1/3'

and Affidavit in terms of Schedule III under Section 19-I of the Court Fee

Act, 1870 'Ex.PW1/4'.

6. Since there was no opposition to the grant of Letters of

Administration from the side of the brothers and the sister of the deceased

Ravindra Nath, consequently, no cross-examination on their behalf has

been conducted.,

7. Objections on behalf of Sudesh Kumar Saini, who was in

occupation of the portion of the property in question were filed wherein

he had stated that deceased Ravindra Nath had made a Will dated

28.10.2005, wherein ground floor and second floor (along with roof

rights) with respect to property bearing No.C-32, Gulmohar Park, New

Delhi were bequeathed in his favour. However, the said objections were

subsequent thereto withdrawn on 18.04.2013. In the light of the fact that

the objections dated 05.12.2006 filed by Sudesh Kumar Saini were

withdrawn on 18.04.2013 and there is no objection filed by Surender

Sharma, Virendra Sharma, Shashi Sharma, Vinod Harsh and

Ms.Shakuntala Dikshit, I find that there is no impediment in granting the

Letters of Administration in favour of the petitioner in respect of the

properties, details of which are given in Schedules, I, II & III.

8. I, accordingly, grant the Letters of Administration in favour of the

petitioner in respect of the properties which are mentioned in the

aforesaid three schedules, subject to petitioner's filing the requisite Court

fee and furnishing administrative bond with one surety to the satisfaction

of the learned Registrar General of this Court. The valuation report from

the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority has been received and be taken

on record.

9. The petition stands disposed of.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MAY 07, 2014 KA