C. R. No. 5785 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5785 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 14, 2010 Ranjit Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Sukhjinder Kaur and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. J. P. S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Ranjit Singh has filed the instant revision petition assailing judgments of both the courts below. Sukhjinder Kaur – respondent no.1 filed application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the amount of term deposit receipt standing in the name of Arpanpreet Kaur, who has since expired. Respondent no.1 herein being mother and heir of the deceased minor Arpanpreet Kaur claimed Succession Certificate of the amount of term deposit receipt. Ranjit Singh – petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent no.2 with General Public as respondent C. R. No. 5785 of 2010 2 no.1. The petitioner herein, who is paternal uncle of the deceased, claimed that he had deposited the amount in the name of his niece and his own name jointly and therefore, only he is entitled to entire amount and Sukhjinder Kaur is not entitled to any amount of the term deposit. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran, vide judgment dated 24.09.2008 (Annexure P-1), ordered that the amount of fixed deposit be released to the petitioner and respondent no.1 in equal shares. Both parties preferred appeals against the judgment of the trial court. However, both appeals have been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, vide common judgment dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure P-2). Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed by Ranjit Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the amount in term deposit was deposited by the petitioner from his own income and therefore, the petitioner alone is entitled to the entire amount. It was also contended that Sukhjinder Kaur – mother of the deceased minor has since remarried and therefore, she is not entitled to any amount of the term deposit. It was also contended that Sukhjinder Kaur – respondent no.1 herein has already filed C. R. No. 4643 of 2010, wherein notice of motion C. R. No. 5785 of 2010 3 has been issued and the instant revision petition may also be heard along with the said revision petition. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find no merit therein. The term deposit was in the name of Arpanpreet Kaur under the guardianship of petitioner and respondent no.1 herein. In view thereof, the petitioner herein being uncle of the deceased girl is not her legal heir and rather respondent no.1 herein being mother of the deceased is her sole legal heir. Consequently, the petitioner would not be entitled to any amount out of the term deposit. However, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the term deposit was in the joint names of the petitioner Ranjit Singh and the minor deceased Arpanpreet Kaur, even then the petitioner would at best be entitled to his 50% share in the amount of term deposit and the same has already been granted to the petitioner by the courts below. Even assuming the version of the petitioner herein to be correct at face value, even then the petitioner is not entitled to more than 50% of the amount of the term deposit and the said 50% share has already been granted to the petitioner by the courts below. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief in the instant revision petition. Remarriage by respondent no.1 – mother of the minor deceased is immaterial because respondent no.1 being mother of the minor deceased would continue to be her legal heir even after remarriage. Consequently, the petitioner cannot claim any share from the amount of the minor deceased. C. R. No. 5785 of 2010 4 For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of C. R. No. 4643 of 2010. September 14, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE