Junas Amrit Theophil Tirkey v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ALOK SINGH
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, present petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Operative part
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH For the Petitioner For the State For the RIMS : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, J.C. to G.P. IV : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ----- 04/03.09.2012 Present petition is filed seeking the writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay all the outstanding dues of late Roseline Tigga. Petitioner claims himself to be the husband and legal heir of Smt. Roseline Tigga. Perusal of Annexure- 1 reveals that earlier civil court has granted succession certificate in favour of the petitioner, vide Succession Case No. 30 of 1991. However, in Miscellaneous Case No. 44 of 1991, succession certificate granted in favour of the petitioner was revoked/set aside. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that since probate was not granted in favour of the father of late Smt. Roseline Tigga, as held in the judgment dated 12.08.2011 (Annexure- 1), therefore, petitioner, being husband of Smt. Roseline Tigga, is the only legal heir entitled for the outstanding amount of Smt. Tigga. Application seeking probate moved by father of Smt. Roseline Tigga, was rejected by this Court, vide judgment dated 12.08.2011, on the ground application seeking probate is not maintainable. This Court nowhere has held that Will in favour of father of late Smt. Roseline Tigga is fake or bogus document. There is no finding on the genuineness of the Will. Since succession certificate, earlier granted in favour of the petitioner, has been cancelled in Misc. Case No. 44 of 1991 and the Will in favour of father of late Roseline Tigga, has not been held to be fabricated or manufactured, therefore, there seems to be inter se civil dispute between the petitioner and father-in- law. Therefore, petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has alternate remedy of approaching competent civil court for the declaration of his right. Hence, present petition is dismissed. (Alok Singh, J.) Manish
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, present petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.