Rajasthan High Court
Raja Ram Yadav S/O Late Kanhaiya Lal ... vs Ramesh Yadav S/O Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal ... on 24 January, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:3942]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4514/2019
Raja Ram Yadav S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Yadav, Aged About 64
Years, Resident Of B-22, Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Yadav S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Yadav, Aged About 72
Years, Resident Of Gulab Niwas, Sanganer Town, Sanganer
Jaipur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 24/01/2024
By way of this appeal, appellant-applicant (for short 'the
applicant') has challenged the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by
District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Misc.
(Succession) Application No.7823/2014 (1672/2010), whereby the
application filed by the applicant under Section 372 of the Indian
Succession Act for succession certificate has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned court
below wrongly dismissed the application filed by the applicant
under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. Learned counsel
for the applicant also submits that applicant had filed an
application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act against
his brother Ramesh Yadav for FDR of Rs.14,68,000/- dated
14.01.2002 made in the name of the applicant and respondent-
non-applicant (for short 'the non-applicant')'s father. Learned
[2024:RJ-JP:3942] (2 of 3) [CMA-4514/2019]
counsel for the applicant also submits that father of the applicant
Kanhaiya Lal Yadav expired on 28.12.2003 at Jaipur and his father
executed Will on 23.01.1996 for partition of his movable and
immovable property amongst his legal heirs. Learned counsel for
the applicant also submits that as per the Will dated 23.01.1996,
applicant was entitled to get 50% of FDR amounting to
Rs.14,68,000/-. Non-applicant had filed Will dated 24.12.2003
executed in his favour regarding said FDR. Learned counsel for the
applicant also submits that the said FDR was forged one. The
applicant had lodged an FIR against the non-applicant. Learned
counsel for the applicant also submits that the said Will bore the
signature of Kanhaiya Lal in English, but in all the Will Kanhaiya
Lal had put his signature in Hindi. Learned counsel for the
applicant also submits that the said Will is unregistered document.
FDR was initially in the name of Kanhaiya Lal and applicant-Raja
Ram Yadav but subsequently it was malafidely changed and made
in the name of Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and Ramesh Yadav without
following the banking rules. Learned trial court has not considered
these documents. So, order of the trial court be set aside and
succession certificate be issued in favour of the applicant for
getting half of the FDR amount.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order.
Learned trial court while dismissing the application filed by
the applicant clearly mentioned that disputed FDR was made on
14.01.2002. After that, Shri Kanhaiya Lal-father of the applicant
as well as non-applicant executed a Will in favour of non-applicant
regarding FDR. Applicant had lodged an FIR with regard to the Will
[2024:RJ-JP:3942] (3 of 3) [CMA-4514/2019]
dated 24.12.2003 executed in favour of non-applicant. After
investigation, Investigating Officer had filed a negative final
report. Non-applicant had proved the Will by adducing evidence of
the attesting witness DW2-Dhularam. DW2-Dhularam in his
evidence clearly stated that Kanhaiya Lal executed the Will
(Ex.A1) dated 24.12.2003 before him. As per the Will dated
24.12.2003, non-applicant was entitled to get the FDR amount.
So, in my considered opinion, learned trial court had not
committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the
applicant regarding issuing of succession certificate in his favour.
So, appeal filed by the applicant being devoid of merit, is liable to
be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /159
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
