SHIV LAL Vs. JOOTHA
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-3-21
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on March 17,1952

SHIV LAL Appellant
VERSUS
JOOTHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BAPNA, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act (No. 39 of 1925).
(2.)THE respondent Jootha applied for grant of succession certificate in respect of the estate of the deceased Punamchand who died on Second Srawan Sudi 15, Smt. 2004 (31st of Aug. 1947). The respondent claimed to be the nearest heir of the deceased and alleged that one Chunilal, who had made a separate application for grant of such certificate was not the nearest heir. The appellant Shivlal objected to the grant of certificate to Jootha alleging that the nearest heir of the deceased Punamchand was Chunilal, who later on died bequeathing all the property to the objector. It was mentioned that Chunilal had filed a petition for grant of succession certificate in respect of the estate of Punamchand out that petition became infructuous owing to Chunilal's death. The relevant portion of the pedigree relied upon by the respondent is as under :
HARING ______________________|_____________________ | | | Inda Chena Sarup | | | Kumpa Male Tulcha | | | Sobha Maga Jootha | | (Applicant) Chunilal Punamchand (through whom the (deceased) objector claimed)

The appellant did not admit that Samp was the son of Haring, but it was alleged, on his behalf that Sarup was the son of Rancher, a brother of Haring. The learned District Judge held that Sarup was the son of Haring and consequently Jootha was nearer in degree to the deceased Punamchand than Chunilal. He also observed that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate being of a summary nature, a legatee from an alleged heir had no 'locus standi' to contest the proceedings. He further observed that the objector was not entitled to a certificate since he claimed under a will for which he could obtain Letters of Administration or Probate. The learned District Judge accordingly directed that a succession certificate be issued to Jootha respondent in respect of the assets of the deceased Punamchand mentioned in the schedule accompanying the petition.

It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the lower Court has grossly erred in relying on the evidence of the witnesses for the respondent, and that the observations of the learned Judge, that the witnesses were residents of the village of the deceased and withstood the test of cross -examination, are not correct.

(3.)WE have gone through the evidence and are of opinion that the evidence led by the respondent is wholly unreliable and entirely Insufficient for a finding that Sarup, the grandfather of the respondent, was the son of Haring. The entire evidence led by the respondent consists of four witnesses, viz., Jhutmal s/o Peera, Chunilal, Ranmal, and the respondent Jhoota himself. The first three witnesses did not belong to the family to which the deceased Punamchand belonged, and they did not state their source of knowledge as regards the pedigree of the family of the deceased. Their parrot -like statements to prove the pedigree relied upon by the respondent, are inadmissible in evidence, Jhutmal s/o Peera admitted that he did not belong to the family of Punamchand and was unable to state the pedigree of his own maternal uncle. Chunilal, the second witness, also did not state how he was connected with Punamchand and what was the source of his knowledge. Ranmal also admitted that he did not belong to the family of the deceased and was not related to him in any way.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.