Rampali vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1984 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 184/2017

%                                                     24th April, 2017

RAMPALI                                                     ..... Appellant
                          Through:       Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate
                                         with appellant in person.
                          versus

THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                   ..... Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this first appeal the appellant impugns the order of the

trial court dated 18.1.2017 dismissing her application for revocation of

the succession certificate. The succession certificate was granted to

Smt. Sonia Yadav and Sh. Bhim Singh, respondent nos. 2 and 3 in this

appeal, and who are the daughter and husband of the deceased Smt.

Kamla Devi. Respondent nos. 2 and 3, Smt. Sonia Yadav and Sh.

Bhim Singh were granted the succession certificate on account of they

being the daughter and husband of late Smt. Kamla Devi who died on

25.4.2015, and hence the legal heirs of Smt. Kamla Devi under the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Appellant applied for revocation of the

succession certificate granted on the ground that Smt. Kamla Devi did

not reside with the petitioners of the succession certificate case,

respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein, for around 35 years and that there is

nomination in favour of the present appellant in the government

records. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for revocation of the

succession certificate on the ground of the appellant being the nominee

in the government records as late Smt. Kamla Devi was a government

employee.

2. The court below has dismissed the petition for revocation

of succession certificate granted on the ground that under the Hindu

Succession Act, respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein, petitioners in the

succession certificate case were the legal heirs. This conclusion is

correct in view of Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act.

3. The court below has further held that nomination will not

make the nominee as the owner of the property. I also agree with this

conclusion of the court below that nomination is not a Will in law

inasmuch as this is the settled legal position in terms of the judgment

of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi and Another

Vs. Smt. Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346.

4. The present case is indeed a hard case because the

petitioners of the succession certificate case are walking away with the

property of the deceased Smt. Kamla Devi although Smt. Kamla Devi

had separated from the petitioners of the succession certificate case

before 35 years prior to the death of Smt. Kamla Devi, however, in the

view of the settled legal position that nomination is not a Will, and in

the absence of the any Will of Smt. Kamla Devi in favour of the

present appellant who is the real sister of the deceased Smt. Kamla

Devi, only those persons who are legal heirs under the Hindu

Succession Act inherit the properties, accordingly this Court has no

option but to dismiss the present appeal.

5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to

bear their own costs.

APRIL 24, 2017/ib                            VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J