NARA G HYNNIEWTA Vs. WEISUK PHANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition for revision, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 08-06-2017, as passed by the District Council Court, Shillong in S/C Misc. Case No. 158 of 2016.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the respondent herein has filed an application for grant of succession certificate in respect of the debts and securities left by her deceased father that has been registered as S/C Misc. Case 158 of 2016 in the Court of the learned Judge, District Council Court, Shillong. In the said application, the present petitioner, being the niece of the deceased, has been arrayed as a respondent and appears to be making counter assertions of claims.

(3.) The subject matter of the present revision petition relates to item No. 3 in the "Schedule of the Debts and Securities", as appended to the application for succession certificate, relating to the Savings Bank Account of the deceased, bearing No. 1574100001632 with the United Bank of India, Nongthymmai Branch, IIM, Shillong carrying an amount of Rs. 28,24,266/-. The present respondent moved an application on 16-11-2016 before the Trial Court for striking out the claim as regards the said item No. 3 in the schedule appended to the application on the ground that the amount lying in the said bank account had been released by the Bank in her favour. The present petitioner contested the said application with the submission that the amount lying in the said bank account (Item No. 3 of schedule to the application) was released and transferred to the bank account of the applicant during the pendency of the contested case of succession certificate; and that the applicant got the said amount while concealing the facts that the case was still pending before the Court. The learned Judge, District Council Court, however, proceeded to observe that once the debt had already been released, it would be of no use to include the same in the application for succession certificate; and if the opposite party (petitioner) was aggrieved with such release of money in favour of the applicant, she could agitate the matter "separately in some other forum". The learned Judge, therefore, proceeded to allow the application while observing as under: