RAM PAL Vs. KALU ALIAS RAMDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal of Rampal is directed against the order of the District Judge, Ajmer, dated January 7, 1970 rejecting the application of the appellant for the grant of succession certificate under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioner appellant filed a petition before the District Judge, Ajmer, claiming himself to be the successor of deceased Jeetmal who died issueless, his wife having predeceased. The petitioner was the son of a real brother of Jeetmal. He therefore prayed that a succession certificate be given to him in respect of the debts mentioned in the schedule annexed to the petition. In the pedigree table given in the petition, one Anna Ram was also shown as the nephew of the deceased but Anns Rom did not object the claim of Rampal forgetting succession certificate. One Kalu alias Ramdeo however submitted an objection to the petition filed by the petitioner appellant on the ghround that deceased Jeetmal left a will Ex. A. 2 dated. February 21, 1945. Along with his objection, he also filed a document Ex. A. 1 which was executed by the deceased on October 6, 1964 wherein the deceased had admitted the objector Kalu as his adopted son. This document has been termed by the executor as an Ikrarnama and it was written on a stamp paper of Re. 1.50 p. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the court below framed two issues and after recording the evidence produced by Rampal and Kalu it was held by the court that the two documents produced by Kalu were duly proved by him. The learned District Judge also held that Jeetmal died intestate leaving behind him a will dated Ft February 21, 1945 and therefore, sect on 370 of the Act was a bar for issuing any succession certificate in favour of the petitioner appellant. Having felt aggrieved by this order of the District Judge, the petitioner has preferred this appeal before this Court.

(3.) MR . Chacha, appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand urged that Sub -section (2) of Section 213 of the Act is attracted to this case and therefore, relying on the decisions of this Court in Mst. Jadav v. Ram Swarup 1960 RLW 685, Sheo Nath Singh v. Madan Lal 1955 RLW 593 and Smt. Mooli Bai v. Smt. Dhapi Bai 1966 RLW 59, urged that the decision of the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity.