FAO No.18 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court,at Chandigarh. FAO No.18 of 2008 Decided on February 02,2009. Smt.Shanti Devi --Appellant Vs. Smt.Suchitra @ Santosh and another -- Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain Present: Mr.S.K.Yadav,Advocate, for Mr.R.D.Yadav,Advocate,for the appellant Mr.G.S.Gandhi,Advocate, with Mr.Honny Gandhi and Mr.R.P.Daaria,.Advocates,for respondent No1. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral) This appeal is directed against the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari, dated 27.9.2007, whereby petition filed by the appellant (Shanti Devi) under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, (for short 'the Act') was partly allowed and partly dismissed, holding the appellant and respondent No.1(Smt.Suchitra Devi) entitled to Succession Certificate to the extent of ½ share each of the property left by Nahar Singh (since deceased). Brief facts of the case are that Nahar Singh, son of the appellant and husband of respondent No.1 died intestate in a road accident on FAO No.18 of 2008 (O&M) 2 20.12.1996. The appellant, who happens to be the mother of Nahar Singh filed a petition under Section 372 of the Act in order to succeed to the moveable and immoveable properties left behind by Nahar Singh who was an employee of Gurgaon Gramin Bank. It was pleaded by the appellant in the petition that Bank had demanded Succession Certificate in order to release service benefits of Nahar Singh to her. It was averred that Nahar Singh was having an account in Gurgaon Gramin Bank and the appellant was entitled to get the entire amount left by him being his only legal heir. Initially, the petition was filed only against General Public which was proceeded against ex-parte. Later on, respondent No.1. filed an application to become a party to the petition claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of Nahar Singh which was allowed by the trial Court vide its order dated 12.5. 2003. After having become party to the petition filed under Section 372 of the Act respondent No.1 filed her written statement in which it was pleaded that she was legally wedded wife of Nahar Singh and from their wedlock, they were having two female children namely Lilly and Bhawna. It was also pleaded that appellant herself admitted before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari that respondent No.1.Smt.Suchitra is the legally wedded wife of Nahar Singh and respondent No.1 and her two minor children are his class one heirs. In order to substantiate their respective claim, both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial Court while deciding issue No.1 came to the conclusion that at the time of death of Nahar Singh, respondent No.1 and his two daughters were also with him on the scooter and in the said accident, respondent No.1 received injuries FAO No.18 of 2008 (O&M) 3 while both their daughters had expired. It was further held that both appellant and respondent No.1 are entitled to inherit the estate of deceased Nahar Singh to the extent of ½ share each. The appellant has come up in this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari dated 27.9.2007, which was admitted on 03.10.2008. Later on, counsel for the appellant filed C.M. Nos.25672-CII and 25673-CII of 2008. C.M. No.25672-CII of 2008 was allowed. In C.M.No. 25673-CII of 2008 regarding stay of operation of the impugned order dated 27.9.2007 , notice was issued to respondent No.1 and in the meantime, operation of the impugned order was stayed qua her share. During the course of hearing of the application for stay, both the counsel for the parties were of the view that the decision of the stay application would effect the decision of the main appeal on merits, therefore, the main appeal may be taken up for final hearing. Hence, arguments in the main appeal have been heard with the consent of both the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that respondent No.1 (Smt. Suchitra) has got remarried to one Rattan Singh, therefore, she has no legal right to succeed to the estate left by deceased Nahar Singh and the appellant, being the mother of Nahar Singh as a sole legal heir is entitled to succeed to his entire property. On the other hand, Mr.G.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived because succession never remains in abeyance and the moment a person dies intestate, his legal heirs succeed FAO No.18 of 2008 (O&M) 4 to his estate for which no other activity is required, therefore, respondent No.1. had also succeeded to the property of her husband Nahar Singh and could not be divested of her right even if she has got remarried. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Jagjit Singh and another v. Dalip Kaur and others 2003 (3) RCR (Civil) 569 , in which it has been held that widow, who remarries after succession to the property of her deceased husband, does not loose her right of succession. Similar is the view taken by Karnataka High Court in the case of Aruna and another v. Madhavva and others 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 694 and the Apex Court in Cherotte Sugathan (Died throughd LR's) & Ors. Vs. Cherotte Bharathi & Ors 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 696 After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed because it is an admitted fact that when Nahar Singh died, respondent No.1 was his legal wedded wife and had succeeded to his estate as his Class I heir. It is well settled that succession never remains in abeyance and takes effect immediately at the exact moment of death of a person by operation of law. The vesting of the property on the eligible heirs according to law of inheritance or succession does not depend upon any act of parties or their active or passive attitude towards their right to succeed. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the order of the learned trial Court vide which the appellant and respondent No.1 have been held entitled to ½ share of the property of Nahar Singh. FAO No.18 of 2008 (O&M) 5 With these observations, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. February 02,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge