Gayatri Aggarwal vs Income Tax Commissioner & Ors

Valmiki J. Mehta, J

FAO No. 183/2017 and C.M. No.40420/2017 (for additional evidence by appellant)

This first appeal is filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 impugning the judgment of the Trial Court dated 30.8.2016 whereby

the trial court has dismissed the objection of the appellant/wife/petitioner for grant of succession certificate with respect to the movables and securities

of her husband late Sh. Somesh Aggarwal.

It is noted that the trial court has dismissed the petition by observing that the appellant/petitioner/wife failed to prove that the deceased Sh. Somesh

Aggarwal was the sole proprietor of M/s Yash International as no such documents were filed and also because the appellant/petitioner failed to prove

that she was the wife of the deceased. In this Court the appellant/petitioner has therefore filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC

supported by her fresh affidavit by way of evidence in which the appellant/petitioner has proved various documents being the aadhar card, election

identity card, passport of the appellant/petitioner, documents of Department of Value Added Tax of Government of NCT of Delhi, and all of which

documents in my opinion clearly show that not only the appellant/petitioner is the widow of late Sh. Somesh Aggarwal but also that Sh. Somesh

Aggarwal was in fact the proprietor of M/s Yash International.

In my opinion the trial court should not take such harsh view in uncontested cases as it has taken by the impugned judgment in dismissing a petition

seeking succession certificate especially where other legal heirs have given their no objections to grant of the succession certificate. If the trial court

found that for some reason the relevant documents were not filed on behalf of the appellant/petitioner showing her relationship with the deceased or

how the deceased was the proprietor of M/s Yash International, then, surely in the interest of justice before dismissing the petition seeking succession

certificate, the trial court could have pointed out this fact to the appellant/petitioner and have given an opportunity to the appellant/petitioner to remedy

the defects. This was however not done by the trial court.

In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed. Appellant/petitioner is entitled to the succession certificate of the movable assets and

securities of her deceased husband late Sh. Somesh Aggarwal. The succession certificate will be issued by the court below on the appellant/petitioner

filing the necessary court fee. It is also directed that since the appellant/petitioner is the widow of the deceased and all the contesting private

respondents who are near relations of the deceased have give their no objections, the court below will not insist on an administrative bond or surety

bond from the appellant/petitioner for grant of the succession certificate.

Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations and the appellant/petitioner is directed to appear before the

District & Sessions Judge (North West), Rohini Courts, Delhi and the District & Sessions Judge will now mark the case for issuing of succession

certificate to the appellant/petitioner to a competent court in accordance with law.

Next date of 7.12.2017 is cancelled.