IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDHIGARH 1. Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Date of decision: 24.12.2010 Manjit Kaur Jeijee daughter of Randhir Singh and another. ……petitioners Versus Manjit Kaur widow of Tejinder Singh and another. …….respondents 2. Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 Manjit Kaur widow of Tejinder Singh and another. ……petitioners Versus Manjit Kaur Jeijee daughter Randhir Singh and Others. …….respondents Present: Mr. J.S. Toor , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.S. Virk, Advocate, for the respondent. S.S. SARON, J. This order will dispose of Civil Revision No.285 of 2005 filed by Manjit Kaur Jeijee daughter of Randhir Singh and her brother Iqbal Singh son of Randhir Singh against Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 Singh and widow of Tejinder Singh Dhillon and Sukhmanjit Singh minor son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon as also Civil Revision No.1033 of 2005 filed by Manjit Kaur widow of Tejinder Singh Dhillon and daughter of Chanan Singh and her son Sukhmanjit Singh minor son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon against Manjit Kaur Jeijee daughter of Randhir Singh and Iqbal Singh son of Randhir Singh as also the general public. Both the revision petitions arise out of the same order dated 21.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal of Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and her son Sukhmanjit Singh minor son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala has been accepted. The petitioners in Civil Revision No.1033 of 2005 i.e. Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit Singh minor son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon have prayed for modification of the order dated 21.9.2004 to the extent that they are entitled to one half share each in respect of the debts and securities of Tejinder Singh Dhillon (deceased) and the claim of Manjit Kaur Jeijee daughter of Randhir Singh and Iqbal Singh son of Randhir Singh is liable to be rejected. The petitioners in Civil Revision No.285 of 2005 i.e. Manjit Kaur Jeijee daughter of Randhir Singh and Iqbal Singh son of Randhir Singh have prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala and for restoring the order dated 18.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. The case relates to the grant of succession certificate of the estate of Tejinder Singh Dhillon, who died on 30.6.1995. A petition Under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘Succession Act’ - for short) was filed by Amarjit Kaur (since deceased), mother of -2- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 Tejinder Singh Dhillon, for grant of succession certificate. She claimed that in respect of the estate of Tejinder Singh Dhillon, she (Amarjit Kaur )along with Sukhmanjit Singh minor son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon, were entitled to ½ share each being the mother and son respectively of the latter. Tejinder Singh Dhillon (deceased) was married to Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh (respondent no.1) on 13.4.1984. According to Amarjit Kaur (original petitioner), the marriage between Tejinder Singh Dhillon and Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh was void because both were children of real sisters, as mother of Manjit Kaur namely Gurdial Kaur was sister of Amarjit Kaur (original petitioner), mother of Tejinder Singh Dhillon. Tejinder Singh Dhillon, on 18.5.1995, had filed a petition under Sections 11 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for declaring the marriage between him and Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh to be void. Amarjit Kaur had executed a Will dated 27.7.1995 in favour of her son Iqbal Singh and daughter Manjit Kaur Jeijee. On the demise of Amarjit Kaur, her son Iqbal Singh and her daughter Manjit Kaur Jeijee claimed that they were entitled to the property of Tejinder Singh Dhillon to the extent of the share of their mother Amarjit Kaur, while Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit, minor son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon, were not entitled to any share in the property. The details of the various properties of Tejinder Singh Dhillon are mentioned in the order dated 18.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. Notice of the petition was given to the general public and the other respondents in the initial petition filed by Amarjit Kaur under Section 372 of the Succession Act through publication in the ‘Chardi -3- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 Kala’ newspaper published from Patiala, in its edition dated 5.10.1995. No one contested the petition from the general public. Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh wife of Tejinder Singh Dhillon and Sukhmanjit, minor son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon, filed their reply. The demise of Tejinder Singh Dhillon on 30.6.1995 was admitted. However, it was denied that Amarjit Kaur and Sukhmanjit were the only legal heirs of the deceased. In fact, it was submitted that Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh, being the widow and Sukhmanjit being the son, were only entitled to inherit the estate of the deceased and Amarjit Kaur, was not entitled to any share therein. It was also submitted that Manjit Kaur daughter Chanan Singh had been appointed as nominee by the deceased qua debts and securities mentioned at Sr. No.1 to 3, 4, 6 and 8 in the list of properties, as mentioned in the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patiala; besides share certificates mentioned at Sr. No.7 had been issued in the name of Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh, regarding which, no succession certificate was liable to be issued by the Court. It was submitted that Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh was entitled to withdraw the amount lying in the debts and securities, qua which she had been appointed as nominee by her deceased husband. It was also submitted that the marriage between Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh with Tejinder Singh Dhillon was solemnized as per ‘Anand Karaj’ ceremony and it was denied that the same was void. It was submitted that father of Manjit Kaur namely Chanan Singh was married with Gurdial Kaur daughter of Sadhu Singh and Manjit Kaur was born out of the said wedlock. It was denied that Gurdial Kaur, mother of Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh, was sister of the mother (i.e. Amarjit Kaur) of the deceased Tejinder Singh Dhillon. It was submitted that Mohinder Kaur, sister of Amarjit Kaur, -4- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 was previously married to Jagram son of Shadi Singh, who was son of paternal uncle of Chanan Singh (father of Manjit Kaur). After the death of Jagram, Mohinder Kaur contracted a second marriage with Chanan Singh during the life time of his previous wife Gurdial Kaur, who died at the time when Manjit Kaur was about one year old. It was also submitted that Tejinder Singh Dhillon used to keep a lady as his concubine, to which Manjit Kaur had been objecting. In order to get rid of Manjit Kaur, Tejinder Singh Dhillon had filed a petition under Sections 11 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by concocting a false story on the instigation of his mother Amarjit Kaur and his sister Manjit Kaur Jeijee. The said petition, it is submitted, was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Patiala. It is also submitted that there was a custom in the family of Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and in the family of Amarjit Kaur that children of their sisters could marry each other. As such the marriage between Tejinder Singh Dhillon son of Amarjit Kaur and Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh was legal and valid. It was further submitted that the concubine of Tejinder Singh Dhillon died in a road accident while travelling in a car and the children born from the concubine are Amanjot Kaur and Sukhmanjit. It is further submitted that Iqbal Singh son of Randhir Singh was given in adoption by Amarjit Kaur to her paternal aunt Anoop Kaur, as such, Iqbal Singh cannot inherit the estate of Amarjit Kaur or that of deceased Tejinder Singh Dhillon. The legal heirs of Amarjit Kaur namely Manjit Kaur Jeijee and Iqbal Singh filed a rejoinder whereby, the averments made in the reply filed by Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh were denied and those made in the petition were reiterated. The learned trial court, on 18.2.1997, framed the following issues:- -5- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 1. To what share the parties to the petition are entitled in the estate left behind by Tejinder Singh Dhillon regarding which succession certificate has been prayed for? Onus of proof upon the parties. 2. Relief. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala held that Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh was not entitled to any share in the debts and securities left behind by deceased Tejinder Singh Dhillon. However, Sukhmanjit Singh it was held was born to Manjit Kaur from the loins of Tejinder Singh Dhillon, Therefore, even though the marriage was void, the children born out of the void marriage would be legitimate. Accordingly, Sukhmanjit Singh was held entitled to inherit the property of his parents. Amarjit Kaur (since deceased) and Sukhmanjit Singh were held to be Class-I legal heirs of Tejinder Singh Dhillon and were held entitled to inherit his estate in equal shares. It was held that succession certificate regarding debts and securities left by Tejinder Singh Dhillon were liable to be issued, except for 493 shares of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Baroda, which were issued in the joint name of Manjit Kaur and Tejinder Singh Dhillon. However, Sukhmanjit Singh was held entitled to ½ share therein, whereas Manjit Kaur Jeijee and her brother Iqbal Singh together were held entitled to remaining ½ share in equal shares. Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit, minor son of Tejinder Singh filed an appeal against the order dated 18.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. The learned Additional District Judge, Patiala held that Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh was the legally wedded wife of Tejinder Singh on the basis of marriage solemnized on 13.4.1984. Therefore, -6- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 she was held entitled to 1/3rd share in the debts and securities of her deceased husband Tejinder Singh Dhillon which was wrongly denied. The 493 share mentioned at Sr. No. 7 of the debts and securities of the deceased mentioned in the second paragraph of the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, it was held, shall go to her exclusively, as there was no challenge to the findings of the learned trial court in this regard by Amarjit Kaur. In short, Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit Singh as also Amarjit Kaur were held entitled to the extent of 1/3 share each in the estate of Tejinder Singh Dhillon. Aggrieved against the same, Manjit Kaur Jeijee and Iqbal Singh, daughter and son respectively of Randhir Singh have filed Civil Revision No.285 of 2005 whereby they pray for setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala and restoring the order dated 18.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. Besides, Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit Singh have filed Civil Revision No.1033 of 2005 and they have prayed for modification of the order dated 21.9.2004 to the extent that they are entitled to one half share each in respect of the debts and securities of deceased-Tejinder Singh Dhillon and the claims of others are liable to be rejected. Sh. J.S. Toor, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners Manjit Kaur Jeijee and Iqbal Singh in Civil Revision No.285 of 2005, has contended that the marriage of Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh with Tejinder Singh Dhillon was void being in contravention of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as Tejinder Singh Dhillon and Manjit Kaur were related to each other being daughter and son respectively of two real sisters namely Amarjit Kaur and Gurdial Kaur. As such the marriage was within the prohibited degree and as such void. The -7- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 objector Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh had no right and title in the property of Tejinder Singh Dhillon. It is submitted that Tejinder Singh Dhillon had filed a petition on 18.5.1995 under Section 11 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking annulment of the marriage. The claim of Sukhmanjit Singh son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon, however, was admitted. Amarjit Kaur, mother of Tejinder Singh Dhillon, claimed ½ share and admitted the remaining ½ share of Sukhmanjit. Therefore, it is submitted that the marriage being void, Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh had no right to the estate of Tejinder Singh Dhillon. Sh. Jagmohan Singh Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, with Sh. S.S. Virk, Advocate appearing for Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit Singh, who are also petitioners in Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005, has contended that Amarjit Kaur, who died on 10.1.1996, was not the owner of the property referred to by her, in her alleged Will dated 27.7.1995 and therefore, she was not competent to execute any Will, as her alleged 1/3 share would revert back to Manjit Kaur and Sukhmanjit, raising their share to the extent of ½ share each qua the debts and securities left behind by Tejinder Singh Dhillon. Even if, Amarjit Kaur is held to be the absolute owner of her 1/3rd share, in that situation, the alleged Will propounded by the legal heirs namely Manjit Kaur Jeijee and Iqbal Singh daughter and son respectively of Randhir Singh, would be suspicious and a highly doubtful document carrying no sanctity of law. It is also submitted that Iqbal Singh in fact was adopted by his aunt (father’s real sister i.e. bua) namely Anup Kaur, long time back and he is residing abroad with her and has severed all ties with his original parents. However, it is recited in the Will dated 27.7.1995 that Iqbal Singh was residing with Amarjit Kaur as -8- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 her son and rendering services to her. This aspect, it is submitted, has not been touched by the court below that Iqbal Singh is no longer the son of Amarjit Kaur. It is also submitted that Amarjit Kaur was resident of village Rattangarh, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur, whereas the address mentioned in the Will is that of Patiala. The attesting witnesses of the Will of Amarjit Kaur belong to different and separate localities and have no connection directly or socially with Amarjit Kaur. Both of them were introduced as witnesses. The scribe of the alleged Will namely Rakesh Kumar Mittal stated that two separate copies of the Will were typed and both were signed by the witnesses, whereas, Paramjit Singh the attesting witness, in his cross-examination, stated that only one Will was scribed and he signed at two places. It is submitted that the sole purpose of the document was to thwart the legitimate claims of Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit Singh. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and with the assistance of the counsel, gone through the record. In order to appreciate the controversy, the following pedigree table may be noticed:- Randhir Singh Amarjit Kaur Manjit Kaur Iqbal Singh Tejinder Singh Dhillon (widow) (daughter) (son) (son) Manjit Kaur Sukhmanjit Singh D/o Chanan Singh (son) (widow) -9- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 The case relates to the estate of Tajinder Singh Dhillon son of Randhir Singh. Amarjit Kaur widow of Randhir Singh and mother of Tejinder Singh Dhillon filed a petition under Section 372 of the Succession Act claiming that she and Sukhmanjit Singh minor son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon were entitled to one-half share each in respect of the debts and securities of late Tejinder Singh Dhillon. The marriage between Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Tejinder Singh Dhillon, it was stated, was a void marriage and therefore, she (Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh) was not entitled to any share in the estate of Tejinder Singh Dhillon. The marriage in fact between Tejinder Singh Dhillon (deceased) and Manjit Kaur was solemnized by way of ‘Anand Karaj’ ceremony of marriage on 13.4.1984. Tejinder Singh Dhillon, on 18.5.1995, filed a petition under Section 11 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming that the marriage between him and Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh was void, as his mother Amarjit Kaur and mother of Manjit Kaur namely Mohinder Kaur were sisters. Therefore, the marriage being within the prohibited degrees was void. During the pendency of the said petition, Tejinder Singh Dhillon died on 30.6.1995. It is after his death, that his mother Amarjit Kaur filed the petition under Section 372 of the Succession Act on 9.8.1995 claiming that she along with her grandson Sukhmanjit Singh son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon were entitled to the estate of Tejinder Singh Dhillon to the extent of ½ share each. During the pendency of the petition, Amarjit Kaur died on 10.1.1996. On the basis of a Will dated 27.7.1995 executed by her (Amarjit Kaur), her daughter Manjit Kaur Jeijee and her son Iqbal Singh became legal heirs of Amarjit Kaur and they pursued the petition. The learned Civil Judge (Senior -10- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 Division), Patiala, vide order dated 18.12.2003, held that Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh was not the legally married wife of Tejinder Singh Dhillon and therefore, she was not entitled to any share to the estate of Tejinder Singh Dhillon. Accordingly, succession certificate regarding debts and securities left by Tejinder Singh Dhillon, except for 493 shares of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Baroda which were in the joint name of Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Tejinder Singh Dhillon were ordered to be issued in favor of the legal heirs of Amarjit Kaur i.e. Manjit Kaur Jeijee and Iqbal Singh to the extent 1/2 share and the remaining 1/2 share to Sukhmanjit Singh. Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon filed an appeal against the order dated 18.12.2003 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patiala. The learned Additional District Judge, vide his order dated 21.9.2004, accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 18.12.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala. It was held that Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit were entitled to 1/3 share each in the debts and securities of Tejinder Singh Dhillon, as described in the second paragraph of the judgment of the trial court on the terms and conditions already imposed by the learned trial court, except 493 shares mentioned at Sr. No.7, which would go to Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh exclusively. Besides, Iqbal Singh and Manjit Kaur Jeijee were held entitled to 1/3 share jointly of the estate of Tejinder Singh Dhillon being the son and daughter respectively of Amarjit Kaur, who had filed the petition under Section 372 of the Succession Act. Manjit Kaur Jeijee and Iqbal Singh daughter and son respectively of Amarjit Kaur and Randhir Singh have filed civil revision no.285 of 2005 claiming that the marriage between Manjit Kaur -11- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 daughter of Chanan Singh and Tejinder Singh Dhillon was void ab- nitio within the meaning of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act and such a marriage is not required to be challenged. Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners Manjit Kaur Jeijee and Iqbal Singh, has referred to the case of ‘Veena Rani vs. Jagdish Mitter Malhan, 1990 (1) HLR, 113 and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another, AIR, 1988 SC 644. It is submitted that the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, was based on the judgment in ‘Baboo Ram and another Vs. Karmi, 1983 (6) Marriage Law Journal, 314. Besides the Allahabad High court in ‘Smt. Sheela Wati Vs. Smt. Ram Nandani, AIR, 1981 Allahabad 42, has held otherwise and Baboo Ram’s case (Supra) has been over-ruled in Smt. Ram Pyari Vs. Dharam Dass and others, AIR 1984 Allahabad 147. It is also submitted that an appeal before the learned District Judge was not maintainable as the power exercised by the trial court was that of a District Judge. Civil Revision No.1033 of 2005 has been filed by Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit Singh son of Tejinder Singh Dhillon. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, has been assailed to the extent that Manjit Kaur Jeijee and Iqbal Singh, daughter and son respectively of Randhir Singh as LRs Amarjit Kaur (original petitioner) have been jointly given 1/3rd share of the estate of Tejinder Singh Dhillon through their mother Amarjit Kaur. It is submitted that Amarjit Kaur, mother of Tejinder Singh Dhillon, was not the absolute owner of her share within the meaning of Section 42 of the Succession Act. Besides, Amarjit Kaur was not the owner of the property referred to by her in her alleged Will dated 27.7.1995. Thus, -12- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 she was not competent to execute the Will in respect of the same. In any case, after the demise of Amarjit Kaur on 10.1.1996, her alleged 1/3rd share was liable to be revert back to Manjit Kaur daughter of Chanan Singh and Sukhmanjit Singh qua the debts and securities left behind by Tejinder Singh Dhillon. It is submitted that if Amarjit Kaur is held to be owner of 1/3 share within the meaning of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, in that case the alleged Will propounded by the legal heirs of Amarjit Kaur namely Manjit Kaur Jeijee and Iqbal Singh would show that the Will is a highly suspicious and doubtful document carrying no sanctity of law for granting any right of interest to said Manjit Kaur Jeijee and Iqbal Singh. It is also submitted that it has been established on record that Iqbal Singh was adopted by his aunt (father’s real sister i.e. bua) namely Anup Kaur long back and he is residing with her and has severed all his ties with the original parents. However, it is recited in the alleged Will of Amarjit Kaur that Iqbal Singh was his son and was rendering his services to her. This aspect has not been adverted to by the court below. Other circumstances which make the Will dated 27.7.1995 of Amarjit Kaur to be suspicious, have been mentioned. It may be noticed that the present proceedings have been initiated under Section 372 of the Succession Act which falls under of Part-X which relates to “Succession Certificates”. The proceedings for the grant of succession certificates are summary proceedings. The enquiry contemplated under Part-X of the Succession Act, wherein objection has been raised for the grant of succession certificate, the judge is to examine the claim in a prima facie manner which necessarily means that the claim raised by an objector is also to be reviewed in the same manner in which the case of an applicant for the -13- Civil Revision No. 285 of 2005 Civil Revision No. 1033 of 2005 grant of certificate is made. The applicant in an application for succession certificate is to claim relief as regards the rights and obligation of a deceased. The object of Part-X of the Succession Act is to obtain appointment of