USHA Vs. HARSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this Misc. Appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.1997 passed in Succession Case No. 7 of 1993 by the IInd Additional District Judge, Indore granting succession certificate to Respondent No. 1/original applicant Harshal s/o late Ratnakar Vipat.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, for disposal of this appeal, are that one deceased Ratnakar Vipat was married to Snehlata on 24.1.1977. Out of the wedlock Respondent No. 1 Harshal was born on 22.9.1978. Due to personal disputes and differences Smt. Snehlata deserted and the husband late Shri Ratnakar Vipat took divorce. Unfortunately Ratnakar died on 2.4.1993 at Indore. After the desertion, Respondent No. 1/applicant was residing with his mother. Deceased Ratnakar Vipat was working in the Agricultural Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, at Indore. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for issuance of Succession Certificate in respect of a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 being the amount of Family Benefit Fund; Rs. 60,000.00 on account of G.P.F.; and Rs. 40,000.00 on account of L.I.C. proceeds. It appears that during the period of disputes and distances, the deceased nominated her sister Ku. Usha Vipat d/o Bhalchandra in the service record. In the application, it was submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 1 that he is the only son of deceased Ratnakar Vipat, during the life-time Ratnakar Vipat was maintaining his son and looking after his welfare. It was further submitted in the application that the name of the appellant/sister was only nominated as a trustee. Thus, Respondent No. 1 is entitled to get Succession Certificate in his favour and the appellant is not entitled to get the same as she is neither legal heir nor gets any right under the law. The Deputy Director, Agriculture also submitted the written-statement and stated therein that on the basis of nomination, the Department has already paid a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 of Family Benefit Scheme on 7.7.1993 to appellant and the amount of pension, gratuity and provident fund was still payable. The appellant also filed written-statement and submitted that Respondent No. 1 Harshal is not the son of deceased Ratnakar Vipat as he is not born out of the aforesaid wedlock. A decree for divorce was granted by the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Indore in Case No. 20/1978 on 31.1.1979.

(3.) The trial Court after framing of issues, recording evidence and also hearing the arguments, passed the judgment and recorded a finding that Respondent No. 1 Harshal is the son of late Ratnakar Vipat and being his son he is entitled for the amount claimed in the application. It was further held that wife Smt. Snehlata had taken divorce from the deceased and thereafter he had nominated her sister/appellant in the official record but the trial Court found that the aforesaid nomination was as a trustee because she is not the legal heir of the deceased Ratnakar Vipat. The trial Court after placing reliance on two decisions in the case of Asha Moyal v. Smt. Trivenibai reported in 1995 (1) MPWN 22, and in the case of Kiran Chhabra v. Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation reported in 1991 (II) MPWN 76, held that Respondent No. 1 Harshal being the son of the deceased is the legal heir and is entitled for Succession Certificate and the status of the appellant was as of trustee and ordered for grant of Succession Certificate for the amounts mentioned in the application. Being aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal.