Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.MEERADEVI & ORS versus ALL PUBLIC & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SMT.MEERADEVI & ORS v ALL PUBLIC & ORS - CMA Case No. 1058 of 2005 [2007] RD-RJ 3137 (3 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

--------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 1058 of 2005

SMT.MEERADEVI & ORS

V/S

ALL PUBLIC & ORS

Mr. SHANKER for Mr. JR BENIWAL, for the appellant / petitioner

None present for the respondent

Date of Order : 3.7.2007

HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.

ORDER

-----

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By the impugned order, the learned trial court has granted succession certificate with respect to estate of the deceased Jagdish in favour of all the three applicants, and the non applicant no. 7 who is the mother of the deceased Jagdish Kumar.

It has been contended that there had already been a partition decree in the year 1995 wherein the mother

Vidhya Devi had already got share, and therefore, she could not be granted succession certificate with respect to the property of the deceased Jagdish Kumar.

I have considered the submission.

It would suffice to say that the partition that was effected in 1995 was with respect to property of Nathu

Ram husband of Vidhya Devi, and father of Jagdish Kumar, and the present succession certificate proceedings did not at all relate to any of the properties of Nathu Ram but it is regarding the property of Jagdish Kumar. Admittedly the applicants are the widow and children of Jagdish Kumar while respondent no. 7 is the mother of Jagdish Kumar. A look at the schedule appended to the Hindu Succession Act shows that the mother is also a Class-I heir along with widow and son and daughter. In these circumstances, I do not find any error on the part of the learned trial court in granting succession certificate as granted.

The appeal thus has no force, and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily.

( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.