Lalita Devi And Anr vs Om Parkash And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1246 j&K

                                                                      Sr. No.17
         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU
                                                 MA No. 508/2013
                                                 IA No. 958/2013

Lalita Devi and Anr.                                  .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                        Through: Mr. Anil Biloria, Advocate.

                  Vs

Om Parkash and Anr.                                              ..... Respondent(s)

                        Through: None.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE

                                     ORDER

06.10.2021 (Open Court)

1. This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Succession Certificate Act,

1977 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1977") against the judgment and

order dated 06.09.2013, passed by the learned Principal District Judge,

Bhaderwah (hereinafter referred to as the "District Court"), whereby the

Succession Certificate dated 06.09.2013 has been issued in favour of Om

Parkash-respondent No. 1 herein.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the Certificate in

question had been obtained by the respondent No. 1 by concealing the material

facts that he had already filed an application for grant of such a certificate before

the learned Munsiff, Gandoh.

With a view to understand the controversy in question in its correct

perspective, it is necessary to give in brief the material facts:-

4. Respondent No. 1-Om Parkash filed an application for grant of

certificate under the Act before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh. The application

was in regard to an amount of ₹ 2, 90, 982/-(Rupees Two Lacs Ninety Thousand

Nine Hundred Eighty Two) along with interest lying in the J&K Bank Bank,

Branch Gandoh-respondent No. 2 herein, in the name of Amar Devi (hereinafter

referred to as the "deceased"). The respondent No. 1 had claimed that he was

the nephew of the deceased and was the only surviving legal heir. A certificate

issued by the Tehsildar to that extent was used to support and buttress that

assertion.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Munsiff,

Gandoh, an application came to be filed, seeking impleadment in the said

proceedings on behalf of the appellant No. 1, namely, Lalita Devi, who claims to

be the adopted daughter of the deceased and also figured as a nominee of the

deceased in her Bank Account. The appellant No. 1 otherwise was the real

daughter of appellant No. 2, namely, Revta Devi, who is the real sister of the

deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that upon being confronted

with an application for impleadment by the appellant No. 1, the respondent

No. 1 with a view to subvert the process of law, decided to file a similar

application for grant of the certificate before the District Court.

7. At this stage, it may be necessary to reproduce a few dates, which are

material for the just disposal of the present case. 18.07.2013 was the date, when

the application for impleadment was filed before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh.

It is stated that the next date fixed in the matter was 30.07.2013. The respondent

No. 1 is stated to have filed a fresh application before the learned District Court

on 30.07.2013. The certificate came to be granted in favour of respondent No. 1

on 06.09.2013 and the proceedings before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh were

withdrawn on 07.11.2013.

8 In the application filed by the respondent No. 1 before the District

Court, the applicant appears to have concealed the fact that he had filed an

application for grant of such certificate, which was pending before the learned

Munsiff, Gandoh.

9. Ordinarily, while the applications for grant of certificate in terms of

the Act of 1977 are to be filed before the learned District Judge of the concerned

district, however, in terms of Section 26 of the Act of 1977, the Government has

the power to invest any Court inferior in grade to a District Court with the

functions of a District Court, which would then exercise all powers conferred by

the Act of 1977, as if it were a District Court. Although, learned counsel for the

appellants has been unable to specifically pinpoint as to whether the Court at

Gandoh has been vested with the powers of District Court in reference to the Act

of 1977, yet what is important to note here is the fact that the respondent

No. 1 in its application had not at all mentioned the factum of the pendency of

the proceedings before the Court of learned Munsiff, Gandoh. There was, thus,

a clear concealment on the part of the respondent No. 1 of the fact, which was

material, and would ordinarily have been sufficient for the District Court to

dismiss the said application at the very outset.

10. The story does not end here. Learned counsel for the appellants urged

that, inasmuch as, the appellant No. 1-Lalita Devi was reflected as a nominee in

the Bank Account of the deceased, the bank transferred the amount lying in the

Account of the appellant No. 1 into the Account of respondent No. 1.

Subsequently, however, when the respondent No. 1 obtained the certificate

dated 06.09.2013, impugned in the present appeal, the bank without the consent

and knowledge of the appellant No. 1, transferred the amount from the Account

of the appellant No. 1 into the Account of respondent No. 1. It is stated that this

was done without there being any express order for any such transfer from the

Bank Account of the deceased. A prayer is, thus, made in the appeal for a

direction to the Bank to transfer the amount in question.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants at length.

12. The certificate dated 06.09.2013, impugned in the present appeal, has

clearly been obtained by the respondent No. 1 by concealing the factum of the

pendency of an earlier application before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh, in which

proceedings, the appellant No. 1, had already moved an application for

impleadment as a party. The filing the proceedings before the District Court

was, therefore, clearly an attempt to subvert the process of the law, which had

already been put into motion before the learned Munsiff, Gandoh. Any such

action and manipulation in concealing the material facts cannot be permitted to

result in either an undue benefit on any party, much less the respondent No. 1.

Moreover, the action needs to be undone, especially, when there are the

competing claims by the appellant No. 1 that she was the legal heir of the

deceased and was entitled to receive the amount, which was stated to be illegally

withdrawn from her Account by the Bank.

13. Be that as it may, the order impugned is set aside. The District Court

is directed to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties. However, in case the

District Court comes to conclusion that appellant No. 1 was also entitled to

receive benefits being the legal representative of the deceased either partly or

wholly, then it shall be open to the District Court to take such steps as otherwise

permissible in law to ensure that the benefit is restored to the rightful claimant.

14. Further, in case the appellant No. 1 feels that the Bank has wrongly

transferred the amount from her Account and acted illegally, without any

authority either from the Court or the appellant No. 1, it would be open to the

appellant No 1 to avail such remedies available in law, claiming deficiency of

services or otherwise.

15. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of along with connected IA.

16. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Principal District

Judge, Bhaderwah on 27.10.2021.

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge Jammu 06.10.2021 Ram Krishan Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No