Raj Bharat Bhardwaj v. The State & Ors

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: ll" November, 2016 + FAO 283/2016 RAJ BHARAT BFIARDWAJ Appellant Through Mr Bhopal Singh, Adv. versus THE STATE & ORS Respondent Through Mr S.K. Gulati with Ms Divya Jagga, Advs. for R6 alongwith R6 in person Mr D.K. Sharma. Adv. for R2 to 5 % CORAM /

HON'BLL MS JUSTICE SIJNITA GUPTA SUNITA GUPTA, J(ORAL) The cha11ene in this appeal under SeLtion 299 of the Indian Succession *4

Act (hereinafter rcferrLd to as 'the kct ') readwith Order 41 Rule I CPC is to the judgment dated 17.03.2016 passed by learned Additional District Jidge, Central District, Delhi 'm PC No 49/20 10 titled Raj Bhrat Bhardwaj v The State and Ors ' whereby the petition filed by thc apeI1ant was dismissed with the observation that the appellant / petitioner alone isnot entitled for grant of Letter of 'Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased - Shri Goverdh Bhardwaj mentioned in the amended Schedule *B of the petitin Succinctly staled the case asrsêt up bythe appellant in the petition under Section 278 of the Act is as follows.

¶3The appellant and the respondent nos. 2 to 6 are the sons and daughters of late Shri Goverdhan Bhardwaj who died intestate on 10.12.1999 at Delhi leaving behind property bearing number 24/16. l31ock-24, Double Storey, Moti Nagar, Delhi -• 110 015. His wife Smt. Sharda Rani also expired on 05.06.2002. The appellant and the respondents arc Class-I legal heirs of deceased Shri Goverdhan Bhardwaj. The appellant / petitioner filed the petition under Section 278 of the Act seeking grant of letter of administration in respect of the aforesaid property as mentioned in Schedule B in his flivour. Page lof 7~

¶4Notice of this petition was issued to the State through Collector, all the respondents and citation to general public was published in newspaper 'Statesman '. The respondent nos. 2 to 5 entered appearance and filed their written statement in the form of 'no objection'. All of them stated that they have no objection for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased Shri Goverdhan Bhardwaj in favour of the appellant I petitioner. However, the respondent no.6 filed objections inter alia on the ground that the description of the property is not correct. Moreover, she is having 116th share in the estate of deceased and therefore Letter of Administration caimot be granted to the petitioner alone. The petitioner /appéiiiiiI ds eJJ as the respondent no.6 led their respective evidence Although the petitioter 'appel1ant initially denied that the respondent no.6 ha an 116th harL in the estatt of the deceased Shri Goverdhan Bhardwaj, howeet suhscquentiv he admitted thatshe is haing iiôt t ' share in the ,,a .. - suit prope rty. Despite the fact that ettorts 'ere made by learncd Additional District Judge, the mattr could not be settled 'betec 'ñ the parties and the petitioner and the respondent no 6 did not agree to hae joint letter of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased The Coui t slo'moto Lol.ld not have granted j1nt Letter of Administration in favow of ,the petitioner. / appellantiand the respo 'ndent no.6 as she has legal right to seek Partition 'fth propeitv That being so the petition was dismissed - Feeling aggrieed theprese,ntjqa1 has. ken pretcrrtd by the appellant It was averred that after passing oF ti irpLiëd judgment, the appellant and the respondent no.6 amicably resolved all their disputes with their own free will and without any pressure, undue influence and executed a deed of mutual agreement dated 16.05.2016 whereby the appellant has paid a sum of Rs.7 lacs by way of pay order dated 17.05.2016 as full and final settlement amount in respect of 116th share of the respondent no.6 for the estate of the deceased and on receipt of this amount the respondent no.6 had issued a receipt acknowledging the receipt of settlement amount and no objection with regard to the property.

¶6The respondent no.6 who is present in person in the Court a!ongwith her counsel affirmed this fact. Her statement has been recorded separately wherein she admitted that she has entered into a deed of mutual agreement Ex.RX with the appellant. Pursuant thereto she has received a sum of Rs.7 lacs in respect of her 1161h share in the estate of deceased Shri Goverdhan Bhardwaj i.e. property bearing number 24/16, Block-24, Double Storey, Moti Nagar, Delhi - 110 015 for which she executed a receipt Ex. RY and now she is left with no claim in this property. She further stated that this agreement has been arrived at by her voluntarily without any threat, coercion or pressure of any sort. She further states that she has no objection to the grant of LeuerôiAdmintration in favour of the petitioner / appellant v

. 4••f •- ,

Learned counsd for the iepondcnt no ', 2 to 5 also submits that respondent ...' '. nos 2 to 5 have no objeition to grant of Letttf ol Administration in favour of the appellant as bLiorL thL 1 tial Court also ,1ULfl tttLment/ 110 ohj..ctioii was given by them and undei instructions Irorn ' these respondents he reitLrats that these respondents ha c no objection to grant of kttdr of administration in favour of the appellant . .

In this Lhange of scepario elmpugned order datLd 17.03.2016 passed by learned Additional Disthct ludgc is set aside I ettLrol i\dministration be issued in favour of the appellafit in repLLt of estate ol deLLaLd Shri G\Lrdhan Bhardwaj I e 24/16, Block —24, Dotihlc StOIL\ \ 'loti Jagai Dtlhi 110 015 as mentioned in amended Schedule B of the petitioi FO? completion of formalities for grant of letter of administration, the parties are directed to appear before the concerned District and Sessions Judge on 28.11.2016.

¶9The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith alongwith a copy of this order. 4Uh, (SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 11, 2016/rd Page3of3