NAVIN SIKAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order of the Administrative Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller (Central Delhi) dated 17.10.2012, the petition seeking succession certificate to the debts and securities of the deceased persons namely Sh. R.D.Sikand, Smt. Neera Sikand and Master Munish Sikand (being husband, wife and son respectively) was dismissed inasmuch as the petitioner Sh. Navin Sikand was having a later priority/entitlement as legal heir as the son of the second wife of Sh. Amar Chand Sikand, father of Sh. R.D.Sikand i.e Navin Sikand was only related by half blood to the legal heirs of Sh. Amar Chand Sikand through his first wife Smt. Prakash Kaur, and that legal heirs who were related by full blood; namely the real sisters of Sh. R.D. Sikand; were alive at the time of death of Manish Sikand-the last surviving member in the family of Sh. R.D. Sikand . To appreciate the facts, the following family tree is relevant:- Amar Chand Sikand Wife (1) Prakash Kaur died in 1936 Wife (2) Saraswati Saristha Bhakru(Daughter) died on 4.12.04 R.D.Sikand (son) Died on 30.5.98 Vimla Raj Kumar (daughter) Died in 2007 Navin Sikand (son) Promila Sikand (daughter) Son:Pravin Bhakru Son:Anil Bhakru Son: Dhanesh Bhakru Son: Nitin Bhakru Wife: Neera Sikand Died on 11.3.01 Son: Munish Sikand Died on 14.8.2003 Son: Rajiv Kumar Son: Rakesh Kumar

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant states he has no grievance with the impugned judgment when it dismissed the succession certificate petition because the appellant/ petitioner in view of Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would not have a right to the properties of Sh. R.D.Sikand and his family members because he is only half blood, and since at the time of the death of Sh. R.D.Sikand and his wife and son, the sisters of Sh. R.D.Sikand namely Smt. Saristha Bhakru and Smt. Vimla Raj Kumar were alive, however, what is argued is that once the succession certificate petition was dismissed it could not be continued for the benefit of the objector-Sh. Pravin Bhakru-respondent no.3(v)'s by fixing the case for recording his evidence for proving the debts and securities of late Sh. R.D.Sikand and his family members. I may note in the memo of p ies, there is a mistake and Sh. Pravin Bhakru who is shown as respondent no.3(v), should be shown as respondent No.3, and in fact other legal heirs of Ms. Saristha Bhakru should be shown as respondent nos. 4 to 6. Correct memo of parties now be filed by the appellant to this effect.

(3.) I agree that once the succession certificate petition of the present appellant was to be dismissed as petitioner was not having any locus standi as sisters of Sh. R.D.Sikand were alive when his son Sh. Munish Sikand expired on 14.8.2003, however, if there is an entitlement in the objector-Sh. Pravin Bhakru to claim the succession certificate, that objector namely Sh. Pravin Bhakru will have to file an independent petition for succession certificate for claiming the debts and securities left behind by late Sh. R.D.Sikand, and which thereafter devolved upon his wife Smt. Neera Sikand and ultimately upon Sh. Munish Sikand, son of Sh. R.D.Sikand and Smt. Neera Sikand, and who expired last on 14.8.2003.