Nagar, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer v. General Public, Address

Judgment

2. Versus General Public, Address Smt. Ratan Kanwar D/o Late Shri Ghisulal W/o Shri Chandrasen Shankar Lal, R/o Opp. Bajaj Showroom, Dahod Road, Limadi District Dahod, Gujrat.

3. Smt. Rukmani Devi D/o Late Shri Ghisulal W/o Shri Lalchand Soni, R/o Near Shivmandir, Rajaredi, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)

Smt. Sita D/o Late Shri Ghisulal W/o Shri G.l. Soni, R/o 24/149, Swarnpath Mansarovar, Jaipur District Jaipur Jaipur Raj.

5. The Maharaja Kishangarh Somyag Mill Company Ltd., Registered Office Near Cotton Press, Madanganj, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondents / Non-applicants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashvin Bhargava For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore for respondents No.2 to 4 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA JUDGMENT 23/04/2025

1. The appellant/applicant by filing present civil misc. appeal under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act of 1925’), has challenged the order dated [2025:RJ-JP:17711] (2 of 8) [CMA-689/2022]

05.02.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kishangarh, (Ajmer), (for short ‘the Court below’) in Civil Misc. No.97/2019, whereby the learned Court below dismissed the application filed by the appellant/applicant under Section 372 of the Act of 1925.

2. The facts that emerge from the pleadings are that the appellant/applicant filed an application under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 before the Court below inter alia stating therein that wife of Ghisulal namely; Phool Kanwar adopted him through registered adoption deed dated 24.07.1974, and for this reason he is an adopted son of Late Ghisulal. Late Ghisulal purchased shares of respondent No.5 bearing no.3595 to 3670, amounting to a total of 75 shares. The appellant/applicant and respondents No.2 to 4 are class first legal heirs of late Ghisulal and as such there is no objection posed by respondents No.2 to 4 in transferring of the aforesaid shares in the name of the appellant/applicant. Still, when the appellant/applicant submitted the share certificate to respondent No.5 for transfer of the shares, respondent No.5 denied the same for lack of a succession certificate. Hence, the appellant/ applicant had prayed for the issuance of a succession certificate in his favour.

3. The learned Court below in this regard, on

19.03.2020 published the same in Dainik Newspaper for information to the general public and also issued notices to [2025:RJ-JP:17711] (3 of 8) [CMA-689/2022] respondent Nos.2 to 5. After service of notices, Mr. Jagnaresh, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 but they did not file a reply. Respondent No.5 also did not appear before the learned Court below despite the service of notice upon it. Therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against respondent No.5 on 09.03.2011 and no one put in appearance on behalf of the general public.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed two issues. The appellant/applicant was examined as PW-1 and in defence he exhibited three documents.

5. The learned Court below vide order dated

05.02.2022 dismissed the application filed by the appellant/applicant under Section 372 of the Act of 1925.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the impugned order dated 05.02.2022 passed by the Court below cannot be legally sustained, being contrary to the provisions of law and material on record. Counsel submits that the Court below has committed a gross error while ignoring the material facts of the case as well as the legal position of law, therefore, the impugned order rendered by the Court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Counsel also submits that the learned Court below failed to consider this important aspect that the appellant/applicant filed the aforesaid application for issuance of succession certificate [2025:RJ-JP:17711] (4 of 8) [CMA-689/2022] only for the transfer of shares in his name or payment of share amount, which were purchased by late Ghisulal. Counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 to 4 i.e. daughters of late Ghisulal put in appearance before the learned Court below but they did not file the reply, which clearly shows that there is no objection by the other legal heirs of Ghisulal in transfer of shares in the name of appellant/applicant or payment of share/s. In facts and circumstances, appellant/applicant is legally entitled to get the succession certificate but the Court below overlooked this important aspect while rejecting his application. Counsel also submits that it is relevant to mention here that late Ghisulal died long back and the appellant/applicant was not aware of the death of Ghisulal and after his death, his wife Smt. Phoolkanwar adopted the appellant/applicant in his minor age, through a registered adoption deed dated 24.07.1974 and, thereafter, marriage of appellant/applicant was also fixed by Smt. Phoolkanwar on 18.04.1980 and on the marriage card, name of his father was also shown as late Ghisulal. Thus from the above, it is clear that the appellant/applicant is an adopted son of late Ghisulal, and as such he is a class first successor of late Ghisulal and he has proved the same by his evidence but the learned Court below [2025:RJ-JP:17711] (5 of 8) [CMA-689/2022] did not consider this important aspect while rejecting his application. Learned counsel further submits that during trial, the appellant/applicant had also submitted Sajra of Ghisulal issued by the Member of Nagar Parishad by showing name of all legal heirs of late Ghisulal and also submitted his Aadhar Card. Counsel also submitted that the findings on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed by the court below is absolutely illegal and perverse to the facts and evidence on record. Thus, the impugned order passed by the court below may be quashed and set aside.

7. Per-contra, counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 opposed the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant and supported the impugned order passed by the court below and submitted that the court below after taking into consideration the material which was made available, has rightly passed the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order passed by the court below warrants no interference of this Court.

8. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsels appearing for the respective parties and meticulously scanned and scrutinized the material made available to the Court. [2025:RJ-JP:17711] (6 of 8) [CMA-689/2022]

9. An application for issuance of a succession certificate is required to be made by the legal heirs of the deceased person, upon his/ her death, in accordance with Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The essentials of such an application are enlisted within the said provision itself. Among other requirements, following are the key requirements for such an application. (i) Proof of death of the deceased, including proof of the time of death as well as proof of the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death. (ii) Application must be made to the District Court in whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of death, or where any part of the property is situated.

10. Given that the proof of death is a prerequisite while applying for the grant of a succession certificate, it is indubitable to say that the death certificate of the deceased is a crucial document for the issuance of a succession certificate to the legal heirs, as it serves as conclusive proof of the person's death and marks the legal beginning of succession proceedings. It confirms the date and place of death, which are essential for establishing the jurisdiction of the court and verifying the legitimacy of the claim. Without a valid death certificate, the court cannot proceed with the application, as it must be satisfied that the individual has lawfully died intestate and that the applicant is not attempting to claim [2025:RJ-JP:17711] (7 of 8) [CMA-689/2022] property fraudulently. Additionally, the date of death helps determine the rightful heirs as per the personal laws governing succession, making the death certificate an indispensable part of the legal process.

11. In the present case at hand, the learned Trial Court below, as per the facts available on the record, has observed that certain documentary proofs such as the adoption deed effected by the wife of the deceased, the death certificate of the deceased and the proof of the concerned shares transferred in the name of the deceased, have not been put on record and hence do not prima-facie prove that the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of the death was within the jurisdiction of the Court below and further does not even definitively answer the issue whether the deceased died or not and if so, on what date. Further, the appellant has himself not given any statement pertaining to the same in terms of oral evidence, nor has he presented the death certificate of the deceased. Another pertinent observation is that no certificate/sajra has been presented as regards the proof of persons to be regarded as the first class heirs of the deceased.

12. The learned trial Court has also rightly held that the applicant does not become entitled to get the succession certificate merely because respondent No. 2 to 4 did not have any objection. The applicant was required to prove, with his [2025:RJ-JP:17711] (8 of 8) [CMA-689/2022] own evidence, the fact that he is entitled to the deceased’s shares in question as the first class heir of the deceased.

13. Since the applicant has failed to adduce and prove the relevant documents related to the intestate death of the deceased Ghisulaal, the date of his demise, the place of his demise and the proof of him being a living heir of the deceased, this Court deems fit to dismiss the present appeal as there are no errors or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court below.

14. Since the main appeal is dismissed, the stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar