Jagdish Chanderbhutani vs State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & Ors.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)

By way of present appeals filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’), the appellant has assailed parts of judgments dated 13.09.2019 and 01.06.2019 passed by learned ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (NW), Rohini Courts, Delhi in M. No.84/19 and SCC No. 99/18 respectively. It is prayed that the appellant may be granted succession certificate qua all moveable properties/lockers of deceased/Smt. Kaushal Bhutani.

Since both the appeals arise from a common judgment dated 01.06.2019, they are being taken up together for consideration and shall be disposed of accordingly.

The facts, as discernible from the records, are that the appellant had preferred a petition under Section 372 of the Act, praying for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of investments/debts/securities of Late Sh.Ram Lal Bhutani and Late Smt.Kaushal Bhutani. It was claimed that the appellant was the brother of Sh.Ram Lal Bhutani, who was married to Smt.Kaushal Bhutani. Both Sh.Ram Lal Bhutani and Smt. Kaushal Bhutani had expired on 02.09.2017, in respect of which an FIR No. 279/2017 under Sections 302/394 IPC was recorded at P.S. Bharat Nagar, Delhi.

It was further claimed that the appellant’s parents had already expired and both the deceased having died intestate, were survived by only two legal heirs i.e., the appellant and respondent No. 2. It was also stated that both the deceased had several accounts with various banks.

Pursuant to the appellant’s petition before the learned ACJ, a publication was carried out. However, no member of the public came to oppose or contest the petition. The appellant examined the concerned bank officials of different banks and eventually the petition was partly allowed inasmuch as Succession Certificate in respect of debts and securities of Sh.Ram Lal Bhutani was granted in favour of the appellant, however, Succession Certificate qua debts and securities owned independently and exclusively by Smt.Kaushal Bhutani as well as her half share in debts and securities jointly owned by her with her husband was not granted.

In the review proceedings initiated by the appellant, the prayer was only allowed qua the omitted/missing entries pertaining to Oriental Bank of Commerce, State Bank of India and Canara Bank, and rejected insofar as prayer qua properties of Smt.Kaushal Bhutani were concerned.

The details of debts/securities/insurance policies stated to be exclusively in the name of Smt.Kaushal Bhutani, as mentioned in the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2019, are as under :-

The details of debts/securities/insurance policies stated to be in the joint name of Sh. Ram Lal Bhutani and Smt. Kaushal Bhutani, as mentioned in the impugned judgment, are as under :-

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the records pertaining to statement of accounts, fixed deposit receipts of Smt.Kaushal Bhutani were initially not available with the appellant and came to be subsequently placed on record after passing of judgment dated 01.06.2019. So far as the bank accounts, fixed deposits and pension account relating to her service are concerned, it was stated that the same could not be produced initially as they were in the custody of a common friend, namely Dayanand. When the appellant received those records, he filed the review petition.

It is pertinent to mention here that Section 376 of the Act empowers the Court to extend the succession certificate to any debt or security which was not originally specified therein. The Section further provides that the effect of such extension has to be treated as if the debt or security to which the Succession Certificate is extended was originally specified therein.

Notably, the debts/securities held by deceased Smt.Kaushal Bhutani were her self-acquired properties. It was specifically averred that parents of deceased Smt.Kaushal Bhutani had expired prior to her marriage with Sh.Ram Lal Bhutani. The public notice issued by the Court was in relation to succession certificate of both the deceased persons, however, no member of public came forward.

Even otherwise, reading of Section 387 of the Act shows that the proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate are only summary in nature in which no rights are finally decided. The grant of succession certificate under Section 373(3) is only a prima facie finding of the appellant having best title to the said debts and securities. The grantee is only entitled to collect debts and securities of the deceased, whereafter he shall distribute the same amongst other legal heirs.

Section 375(1) of the Act further provides that the grant would be subject to furnishing of indemnity bond and thus, only enables the grantee being authorized to collect the debt and security without any final determination that he alone is the heir of the deceased [Refer: Atul Maithel v. State Bank of India & Anr. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10921].

Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the justification offered by the appellant for non-production of statement of accounts and fixed deposit receipts of Late Smt.Kaushal Bhutani is plausible. Even otherwise, the debts and securities of Late Smt.Kaushal Bhutani relate to her bank accounts, fixed deposits and pension accounts linked to her service. This Court is also of the opinion that the Trial Court has failed to exercise the powers vested in it under Section 376 of the Act. As such, challenge to part of the impugned judgment dated 01.06.2019 is held to be successful. Both the appeals are allowed. The matter is remanded to the concerned Court with direction to re-consider the review application in light of the provisions of Section 376 of the Act and pass appropriate order.

Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms alongwith pending miscellaneous applications.