Delhi High Court
Virender Kumar Gupta & Ors vs The State & Ors on 7 May, 2015
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 281/2014 & CM 8478/2015
% Date of decision : 07th May, 2015
VIRENDER KUMAR GUPTA & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Goyal and Mr. Abhijoy
Banerjee, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment dated 22 nd
May, 2015 whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition for grant
of letters of administration.
2. The petitioners are the sons of late Shri Raghubir Saran Gupta who
died intestate on 02nd August, 1994. The deceased was the owner in
possession of property bearing No.19, Jagriti Nagar Co-operative House
Building Society Limited and was survived by his wife, three sons and four
daughters. The wife and the four daughters were impleaded as respondents
No.2 to 6 in the petition.
3. The learned Trial Court issued notice to the respondents and also
directed the notice to be published in the newspaper. Respondents No.2 to 6
appeared before the Trial Court and gave their no objection by filing an
affidavit before the Trial Court. The public notice was published in the
Navbharat Times on 27th April, 2012.
4. Appellant No.1 appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and proved that
his father died intestate on 02nd August, 1994 leaving behind property
No.19, Jagriti Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Limited which is
in occupation of the appellants. Appellant No.1 is in possession of the first
floor; appellant No.2 is in possession of second floor and appellant No.3 is
in possession of the ground floor of the said property, whereas the roof
rights are common between all the three appellants. PW-1 proved the death
certificate as Ex.PW-1/1 and the title documents in respect of the said
property as Ex.PW-1/2 and Ex.PW-1/3.
5. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the
appellants have not proved the title of late Raghubir Saran Gupta in respect
of the subject property. The learned Trial court referred to and relied upon
Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 206
in which the Supreme Court held that general power of attorney does not
confer any title in the immovable property.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the question of title
is not relevant in such proceedings and the Trial Court was not required to
go into the question of title.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Suraj Lamp
and Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) does not apply to the transactions before
October, 2011. Since the documents in favour of the appellants' father are
dated 15th May, 1986, Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) would
not affect the present case. Reference was also made to Hardip Kaur v.
Kailash & Anr. 193 (2012) DLT 168.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
respondents No.2 to 6 have now executed a relinquishment deed dated 16 th
March, 2015 in favour of the appellants. Copy of the relinquishment deed
dated 16th March, 2015 has been handed over and is taken on record.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to and relied upon Shiv
Kumar v. State & Ors. 47 (1992) DLT 487 in which this Court ordered the
issuance of letters of administration on the basis of uncontroverted and un-
rebutted testimony of the petitioner therein and the no objection given by the
other legal representatives of the deceased.
10. On careful consideration of the contentions raised by learned counsel
for the appellant, this Court is satisfied that the learned Trial court erred in
examining the issue of title of the property of the deceased. In Surjeet Kaur
v. State 212 (2014) DLT 456, this Court has held that it is not required to
into the question of title in the proceedings for probate or letters of
administration of the deceased under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Learned Trial Court further erred in applying Suraj Lamp and Industries
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which does not affect the transactions before 15th May,
1996. This Court is satisfied that the will has been duly proved and there is
no impediment in the grant of letters of administration in respect of the
estate of the deceased to the appellants.
11. The Petitioner has sought the dispensation of administration and
security bonds on the ground that the Petitioners are the natural heirs of the
deceased and are in possession of the suit property in terms of the Will of
the deceased. The rest of the legal heirs have relinquished their rights in
favour of the appellant and given their "No Objection" to the grant of letters
of administration. In the cases of Satish Kumar Sud and Anr. Vs. State and
Anr. MANU/DE/2169/2011 and Shakuntala Taxali v. State 61 (1996) DLT
267, this Court dispensed with the administration and security bonds on
similar grounds. Following the aforesaid judgments, CM 8478/2015 is
allowed and the requirement of administration and security bonds is
dispensed with.
12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, appeal is allowed; the
impugned judgment is set aside and the letter of administration in respect of
property No.19, Jagriti Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Limited
is granted to the appellants upon furnishing of the requisite Court-fees.
13. Copy of this order to be given dasti to counsel for the parties under
the signature of the Court Master.
J.R. MIDHA, J.
MAY 07, 2015
rsk
