SURENDRA TIWARY Vs. RAJ KUMARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.7.1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge 1. Barh, in succession Case No. 13 of 1988, whereby the Court below after rejecting the objection filed by the objector appellant allowed the application filed by the petitioner-respondent 1st set under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

(2.) The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The applicant Respondent No. 1 Raj Kumari Devi filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of a succession certificate in respect of the assets of the deceased Panna Devi fully described in the Schedule of the application. The details of the movable properties left by the deceased are cash deposits in the Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India, post offices and deposits under Group Insurance Scheme and the amount of gratuity, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 6 are the own nieces of the deceased Panna Devi who was headmistress in a lower Primary School, Pandarak in the district of Patna. She died on 2.0.1988 in the Holy Kurji Hospital, Patna. The case of the applicant-respondent No. 1 was that she and Respondent No. 6 are only legal heirs of the deceased Panna Devi. The deceased was working as Government teacher and she during her lifetime had opened an account and deposited cash in the local Bank and post offices. According to her there is no other legal heir except Respondent Nos. 1 and 6. Accordingly she made an application for grant of a succession certificate. In the said proceeding the applicant-Respondent No. 1 made Banks, post master of the Post Office and the District Superintendent of Education. Patna as parties. The present appellant intervened in the said case and he was made party by the order of the Court below. The case of the present appellant-objector is that the deceased Panna Devi during her lifetime opened joint accounts in her name and in the name of the appellant and the said amount is payable to the survivor after maturity. The appellant also claimed himself as legal heir of the deceased on the ground that he is the son of the own sister of the deceased Panna Devi. The Court below after hearing the parties and after considering the facts and evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the objection raised by the appellant has no merit and the applicant and Respondent No. 6 are only heirs and entitled to the properties. Accordingly, a succession certificate was granted in favour of the Respondent No. 1. Hence this appeal.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and order as being illegal and contrary to law and evidence on record. Learned Counsel submitted that the Court below has completely misconstrued the law with regard to succession and deposition. Learned Counsel further submitted that admittedly assets are self acquired property of the deceased and she had absolute power to demise the same in favour of any person to the exclusion of all. Accroding to the learned Counsel, the Court below committed serious error of law in applying Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that the deposits made in the bank were in the joint name of the deceased and the appellant which also provided the mode of operation either by 'former' or 'survivor'. The succession certificate granted in favour of the applicant Respondent No. 1 is, therefore, bad in law.