Rajender v. Union of India & Ors.

In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the petitioners are legal heirs of deceased Chunni Lal and are entitled to Succession Certificate, as prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the petition is within limitation?OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

4. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present petition?OPR

5. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of the necessary parties?OPD

6. Relief. S.A.O.No.17 of 2008 3

5. The parties produced the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, in order to substantiate their respective stands.

6. The Court dismissed the petition of appellant/petitioners, vide impugned judgment 21.3.2005. The appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 23.10.2007.

7. Appellant Rajender son of Ramji Lal, one of the original petitioners, did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and filed the present appeal.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record with their valuable assistance, to my mind, there is no merit in this appeal.

9. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that the appellant and his brothers claim themselves to be the nearest legal heirs of deceased Chuni Lal, who was freedom fighter. Chuni Lal had already expired. Now the appellant claimed succession certificate to receive the amount of pension of freedom fighter Chuni Lal and his estate. The appellant, in order to prove relationship with the deceased, stepped into the witness box as PW1 and no other oral as well as documentary evidence was produced by him to prove relationship with the deceased. The trial Court has recorded a finding of fact that the appellant and others have miserably failed to prove their relationship with the deceased, rather, this fact is proved from his (appellant) admission that Dharmu and Shobha were real brothers. Dharmu had two sons Hardayal and Ganeshi. Ganeshi died issueless. Hardayal had three sons Ram Parshad, Aad Ram and Ramji Lal. Ram Parshad and Aad Ram also died issueless. The appellant and his brothers are the sons of S.A.O.No.17 of 2008 4 Ramji Lal. Therefore, it is proved that one Indrawati daughter of Geega Bai daughter of Dharmu, who is nearest collateral of deceased Chuni Lal, is still alive. Hence, the Courts below have rightly negatived the claim of the appellant, in this relevant connection.

10. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. As per Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme (Rules), 1980, if the freedom fighter is not alive, only the widow/widower, if she/he has not since re-married, unmarried/unemployed daughters, mothers and fathers are only eligible persons to receive the freedom fighter pension of the deceased. It is not a matter of dispute that none of the appellant/petitioners falls within the indicated category. Therefore, even otherwise, they are not entitled for any succession certificate in this regard. Besides it, no such intricate questions of inheritance of the estate of the deceased and the relationship of the appellant with the deceased, cannot possibly be decided in these summary proceedings under section 372 of the Act.

11. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant direction, .

12. Moreover, the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the appellant and his brothers are not the nearest collateral of deceased Chuni Lal and they are not eligible to the amount of S.A.O.No.17 of 2008 5 pensionary benefits of the deceased under the Pension Rules. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard.

13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

14. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

29.6.2010 AS (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No