C.M. (M) No.600/2008 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 14th May, 2008 Date of Decision: 16th May, 2008 + CM(M) No.600/2008 & CM No.7165/2008 # JEET KAUR .... Petitioner ! Through: Mr. B. S. Chowdhary, Advocate Versus $ STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents ^ Through: Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: * HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether the judgment be referred to the reporter or not? yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? yes Veena Birbal, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.8.2007 by which succession certificate granted in her favour by the learned Administrative Civil Judge has been revoked and in consequence thereof vide order dated 4.2.2008 she has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs.5,02,403/- in the form of FDR in court. She has also C.M. (M) No.600/2008 Page 2 of 3 challenged order dated 3.4.2008 by which her review application has also been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that learned Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi has committed illegality in revoking the succession certificate which was granted in favour of petitioners vide order dated 6.3.2003. It is further contended that learned Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner was joint owner of fixed deposit of Rs.4,52,000/- for which petitioner had obtained succession certificate for the aforesaid FDR wherein half of the amount was belonging to her. It is prayed that the impugned order is illegal and same be set aside. 3. I have heard the submissions made and gone through the record. 4. Perusal of the record shows that petitioner and deceased Jeet Singh are not real brother sisters whereas in her petition for grant of succession certificate petitioner has stated herself as the “real sister” of deceased Jeet Singh. Respondent no.2 has pointed out to the Court which C.M. (M) No.600/2008 Page 3 of 3 granted succession certificate that there was a “Will” dated 18.3.1998 left by deceased Jeet Singh in his favour for his debts and securities and the said will was also got probated from the court of learned ADJ prior to grant of succession certificate by the applicant/petitioner and the said fact was also concealed by the petitioner while obtaining succession certificate. It is also noted by the learned Judge that respondent no.2 is the real brother of petitioner and the said fact was also concealed by her from the court. Considering the above learned Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi has revoked the succession certificate granted in her favour and had directed her to deposit the amount in court in the form of FDR. 5. I find no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order which calls for interference of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Veena Birbal, J. May 16, 2008 srb