Jharkhand High Court
P. Chanda Rao vs (A) Smt. Aadi Lakshmi on 30 January, 2024
Author: Subhash Chand
Bench: Subhash Chand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.248 of 2007
------
P. Chanda Rao, wife of late P. Ratna Rao, resident of Qr. No.93KF-4, P.O. &
P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
...... ...... Appellant
Versus
1(a) Smt. Aadi Lakshmi, wife of Sri C.H. Satyanand Rao
1(b) Smt. B. Bharti, wife of late Sri B. Ramkrishna
1(c) Smt. P. Pushpalata
All resident of 22 Sitaramdera, New Layout, P.O. & P.S. Agrico, Town
Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
..... .... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents :
--------
Order No.21/ Dated: 30th January, 2024
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the impugned
order dated 11.06.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge,
Jamshedpur in Succession Certificate Case No.28 of 2006, whereby the
learned Court below has refused to grant the succession certificate to the
appellant/ applicant in regard to the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in fixed deposit
with the Union Bank of India jointly in the name of the appellant and her
deceased husband.
2. The brief facts leading to this Miscellaneous Appeal are that the
appellant P. Chanda Rao had filed the application for grant of Succession
Certificate under the provision of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act
with these averments that her husband died on 20.06.2004 and after his
death he left behind him his wife, two daughters and one son, all three
children were minor at that time and all were residing with the applicant/
appellant. Besides leaving his wife and the minor children, the deceased had
also left his father Mr. P. Ramchandra Rao, who was alive at that time. The
husband of the appellant and the appellant herself had initially deposited
Rs.50,000/- each for five year in fixed deposit and that account was either or
survivor. The deceased had not executed any will in regard to the amount
deposited in fixed deposit and the prayer was sought to issue the succession
certificate in regard to the matured amount, which was Rs.2,50,000/-. The
details of the same is given at the foot of the application in the schedule. All
the requisite formalities were completed before the learned lower Court.
3. On behalf of the appellant in oral evidence examined A.W.-1, P.
Chanda Rao herself and A.W.-2, Bhuneshwar Rao. In documentary
evidence adduced the fixed deposit certificate and death certificate of P.
Ratna Rao @ John. No evidence oral or documentary was adduced on
behalf of the respondent/ opposite party.
4. The learned Trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of both
parties, passed the impugned judgment on 11.06.2007 and dismissed the
application filed for issuance of succession certificate.
5. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, this Miscellaneous Appeal
has been directed on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the impugned
order passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law. The
learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record and on the
basis of erroneous findings refused the prayer for issuance of Succession
Certificate.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
materials available on record.
7. To decide the legality and propriety of impugned order the evidence
adduced by the parties is reproduced here under:
7.1 A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao, in her examination-in-chief, says that her
husband died on 20.06.2004 and after his death he had left behind his wife,
two daughters and one son, all the children were minor at that time. Her
mother-in-law had died and father-in-law was alive. In cross-examination,
this witness stated that her husband was murdered. In that case, she was also
accused. She was acquitted in that case. She denied the suggestion that the
Hon'ble High Court again remanded the case for re-trial to the learned Court
below.
7.2 P.W.-2, Bhuneshwar Prasad, in his examination-in-chief, says that P.
Chanda Rao and her husband P. Ratna Rao had joint fixed account, in
which, the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is deposited. There were five policies
of Rs.50,000/- each fixed deposit, the receipt number were
505903020020015 (15 to 19). This said amount was initially deposited on
22.09.1999. This policy was 'either or survivor'. Deposit form is in
signature of Clerk Arvind Kumar and is in his handwriting. He identifies the
same and marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination, this witness says that
this Form was not filled in his presence. In this account, no one was
nominee.
8. From the very perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned
Court below, it is found that the Succession Certificate was refused to grant
in favour of the applicant/appellant on the ground that she was accused in
murder case of her husband. The only issue, which is involved for disposal
of this appeal is:
"Whether the appellant is debarred from the succession certificate in
regard to the amount deposited in FDR Account
No505903020020015 (15 to 19) on the ground of being accused in
murder case of her husband?".
9. From the evidence on record oral as well as documentary, this fact is
admitted that five policies of Rs.50,000/- each were deposited by the
applicant/ appellant and her husband jointly in fixed deposit. This fact is also
proved by the P.W.-2, Bhuneshwar Prasad, who has also proved the initial
form, which was filled by Clerk Arvind Kumar. The said amount, which was
deposited in the year 1999 became Rs.2,50,000/-. To that effect fixed deposit
certificate is on record, which is Exhibit-1. The death certificate of P. Ratna
Rao is Exhibit-2, in which, date of death is shown 20.06.2004.
10. After his death, P. Ratna Rao had left his wife, two daughters and one
son, all children were minor at the time of moving the succession certificate
application. The father-in-law was also impleaded as party and
participated in the evidence and proceeding, which was conducted
before the learned Court below. But the minor children were not
impleaded as party through her natural guardian or next friend.
11. From perusal of judgment passed in murder case, which is also on
record, it is found that in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2005 and Sessions Trial
No. 96 of 2005 (State Vs. Shiv Narayan Yadav and seven others) arising out
of G.R. Case No. 968 of 2004, Sitaramendra P.S. Case No.41 of 2004, the
learned trial Court had acquitted four accused persons, namely, Shiv
Narayan Yadav, P. Chanda Rao, Mohan Gupta and Raju Das @ Raju
Podwal.
12. Though the suggestion was given to the A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao
during the cross-examination that the said judgment of acquittal dated
22.12.2005 was assailed before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble
High Court has also remanded the same to the learned trial Court but there is
nothing on record to this effect in the lower Court record.
13. Admittedly, the appellant/ applicant and her deceased husband on
whose death, she claimed for succession certificate for the amount jointly
deposited by herself and her husband are Hindu. Therefore, both are
governed with Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 25 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 reads as under:
"25. Murderer disqualified. ―A person who commits murder or abets
the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the
property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance
of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the
commission of the murder."
13.1 From the bare perusal of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, it is evident that the murderer is disqualified to succeed the deceased,
whose murder is caused by him or her.
13.2 Herein, it is pertinent to mention that the applicant was one of the
accused among other accused in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2005 arising out of
G.R. Case No.968 of 2004 (Sitaramendra P.S. Case No.41 of 2004) and in
the same Sessions Trial case, the applicant along with other co-accused
were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Civil
Court, Jamshedpur. There is nothing on record that against the said
judgment of acquittal of the applicant in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2005
any Acquittal Appeal was preferred or the same is pending or decided.
The only suggestion was given to the A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao that against
the judgment of acquittal, the acquittal appeal was preferred, in which, the
Hon'ble High Court remanded the same for re-trial to the learned trial Court
concerned. This suggestion has been denied by the A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao,
but to this effect nothing has been adduced on behalf of the respondent/
opposite party. Though, P. Ramchandra Rao, who is the father-in-law of the
applicant was also shown one of the legal heirs of deceased and on behalf of
the P. Ramchandra Rao, the father-in-law, the cross-examination was
done by his learned counsel from A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao. Neither P.
Ramchandra Rao did produce himself as a witness before the Court nor
adduced any evidence to this effect that the judgment of acquittal of the
applicant P. Chanda Rao was ever assailed before the appellate Court.
In view of the acquittal of the appellant/ applicant in Sessions Trial No.17 of
2005, she cannot be said to be disqualified under Section 25 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956.
13.3 Herein, it is pertinent to mention that the initial amount, which was
deposited not only by the deceased husband, rather it was deposited by
both the appellant and her husband as well. The fixed deposit account
was 'either or survivor'. Copy of five policies of Rs.50,000/- each in joint
name of applicant and her husband are on record.
13.4 The learned Court below has also refused to grant the succession
certificate to the applicant has concealed the fact of being accused in
commission of the murder of her husband. Certainly, this fact is not
disclosed by the applicant in the succession application. The reason of
the same is that the succession certificate was filed by the applicant on
20.04.2006 and the applicant had been acquitted from the charge of
alleged murder in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2005 vide judgment dated
22.12.2005. In view of the acquittal of the applicant prior to filing the
succession application, this finding of the learned Court below is found
perverse that she has concealed the fact of being accused in commission of
the murder of her husband.
14. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Court below,
whereby the appellant was refused to issue the succession certificate bears
infirmity and the same needs interference and this Miscellaneous Appeal
deserves to be allowed.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is
hereby set aside and this Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. In consequence
thereof, the succession certificate application of the applicant/ appellant
stood allowed.
16. Let the succession certificate be issued by the learned Court below in
favour of the appellant/ applicant adopting the mode of Section 379 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925 in regard to the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-
deposited in FDR Account No. 505903020020015 (15 to 19).
17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court
concerned through 'FAX'
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Madhav/-A.F.R.
