Gayatri Aggarwal Vs. Income Tax Commissioner & Ors.
January, 10th 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No.183/2017
% 10th November, 2017
GAYATRI AGGARWAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Shubham Gupta,
INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER & ORS. ..... Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
FAO No. 183/2017 and C.M. No.40420/2017 (for additional
evidence by appellant)
1. This first appeal is filed under Section 384 of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 impugning the judgment of the Trial Court
dated 30.8.2016 whereby the trial court has dismissed the objection of
the appellant/wife/petitioner for grant of succession certificate with
respect to the movables and securities of her husband late Sh. Somesh
FAO No.183/2017 Page 1 of 4
2. It is noted that the trial court has dismissed the petition by
observing that the appellant/petitioner/wife failed to prove that the
deceased Sh. Somesh Aggarwal was the sole proprietor of M/s Yash
International as no such documents were filed and also because the
appellant/petitioner failed to prove that she was the wife of the
deceased. In this Court the appellant/petitioner has therefore filed an
application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC supported by her fresh
affidavit by way of evidence in which the appellant/petitioner has
proved various documents being the aadhar card, election identity
card, passport of the appellant/petitioner, documents of Department of
Value Added Tax of Government of NCT of Delhi, and all of which
documents in my opinion clearly show that not only the
appellant/petitioner is the widow of late Sh. Somesh Aggarwal but
also that Sh. Somesh Aggarwal was in fact the proprietor of M/s Yash
3. In my opinion the trial court should not take such harsh
view in uncontested cases as it has taken by the impugned judgment in
dismissing a petition seeking succession certificate especially where
other legal heirs have given their no objections to grant of the
FAO No.183/2017 Page 2 of 4
succession certificate. If the trial court found that for some reason the
relevant documents were not filed on behalf of the appellant/petitioner
showing her relationship with the deceased or how the deceased was
the proprietor of M/s Yash International, then, surely in the interest of
justice before dismissing the petition seeking succession certificate,
the trial court could have pointed out this fact to the
appellant/petitioner and have given an opportunity to the
appellant/petitioner to remedy the defects. This was however not done
by the trial court.
4. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is allowed.
Appellant/petitioner is entitled to the succession certificate of the
movable assets and securities of her deceased husband late Sh.
Somesh Aggarwal. The succession certificate will be issued by the
court below on the appellant/petitioner filing the necessary court fee.
It is also directed that since the appellant/petitioner is the widow of the
deceased and all the contesting private respondents who are near
relations of the deceased have give their no objections, the court below
will not insist on an administrative bond or surety bond from the
appellant/petitioner for grant of the succession certificate.
FAO No.183/2017 Page 3 of 4
5. Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms
of aforesaid observations and the appellant/petitioner is directed to
appear before the District & Sessions Judge (North West), Rohini
Courts, Delhi and the District & Sessions Judge will now mark the
case for issuing of succession certificate to the appellant/petitioner to a
competent court in accordance with law.
6. Next date of 7.12.2017 is cancelled.
NOVEMBER 10, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
FAO No.183/2017 Page 4 of 4