VIMLESH Vs. DWARKA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -applicant under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') challenging the order dated 21.9.04 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Beawar, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below') in Succession Application No. 9/03, whereby the court below has partly allowed the said application by directing to issue succession certificate in favour of the appellant to the extent of 30% of the amount of LIC Policy being No. 181307413 of the deceased Gaurav Singhania, and to issue succession certificate in favour of the original -respondent No. 1, (now deceased), in respect of 70% of the amount of the said policy. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant is the mother of the deceased Gaurav Singhania, who died in road accident on 16.6.02. According to the appellant, there was an LIC policy for Rs. 1,70,000/ - in the name of her son Gaurav Singhania, in which no nomination was made and, therefore after his death, the application was filed by her under Section 372 of the said Act for obtaining the succession certificate in respect of the said policy. In the said application, the respondent No. 1, who happened to be the grandfather of the deceased Gaurav and the father -in -law of the appellant had filed the objection contending inter alia that the appellant had left her son Gaurav with the respondent No. 1 when he was 3 years old, and that the appellant was living an unchaste life and therefore she was not entitled to get the succession certificate. The respondent No. 2 who happened to be the daughter of the appellant had filed the reply that she had no objection if the succession certificate was issued to the appellant -applicant. The court below after considering the evidence on record partly allowed the application of the appellant -applicant as stated hereinabove.

(2.) IT has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. J.P. Gupta for the appellant that as per the Hindu Succession Act, the mother was entitled to receive the property of the deceased son, who died intestate, and not the grandfather. According to him the respondent No. 1, the grandfather having already expired during the pendency of the appeal, his heir, who is sister -in -law of the appellant, could not be granted any succession certificate in respect of money due from the LIC after the death of her son Gaurav. He also pointed out from the evidence on record more particularly from the evidence of respondent No. 1 recorded before the trial court that the respondent No. 1 himself was living an immoral life as he himself had admitted that he had a concubine.

(3.) IN the instant case, at the outset it is required to be mentioned that the original -respondent No. 1 Dwarka Prasad, who happened to be the grandfather of the deceased Gaurav and the father -in -law of the appellant, has expired during the pendency of the appeal and in his place his married daughter Smt. Premlata has been brought on record. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent No. 2, who happened to be the daughter of the appellant had no objection if the succession certificate was granted in favour of the appellant. So far as the evidence on record is concerned, it appears that the appellant was not staying with the respondent No. 1 after the death of her husband who had died long ago. However, there is nothing on record except the bald allegations made by the respondent No. 1 in his evidence that the appellant was living an immoral and unchaste life. On the contrary the respondent No. 1 himself had stated in his evidence that he had a concubine. The court therefore, finds substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that under the circumstances the appellant must have been compelled to stay separately after the death of her husband.