Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT ITANAGAR BENCH
Ajit Borthakur, J.
Jawing Raj Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Jamaiko Singpho - Respondent.
CRP No. 15(AP) of 2011
Decided On : 02-11-2017
Constitution of India –Article 227 –Indian Succession Act, 1925 –Sections 383(b), 291 –Issue on ancestral Property–The petitioners case, in a nutshell, is that, his father died leaving behind the persons, viz., eldest son (Petitioner), 2nd wife (Opposite Party), a minor son – The petitioner has contended that as per the customary law of Singpho community, on death of the head of the family, the entire property, movable and immovable, devolved on his eldest son (the petitioner) and accordingly –Held, Needless to say that a compromise is always a bilateral and means at mutual adjustment for the settlement of a dispute without resorting to a formal proceeding under the law – It is, further, seen that the petitioner and the opposite party signed in an administrative bond, whereby, the opposite party was appointed as administrator of the estate of late Duwa Pisa Gam Rajkumar which was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Therefore, the impugned order, passed in Misc. (J) Case being passed was consensual in nature having been signed by the parties in the petition, and the administrative bond, and further, being passed in terms of the amicable settlement arrived at by the parties, after due procedure provided in the Indian Succession Act, it has binding force on the parties to the said civil proceeding –Revision allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. This old pending revision of 2011 under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order, dated 27.1.2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Changlang, in Misc. (J) Case No. 01/2009 arising out of Civil Suit No. 13/08.
2. The petitioner's case, in a nutshell, is that, his father late Duwa Pisa Zawrong Rajkumar @ Bisagam Rajkumar died on 12.11.2007 leaving behind the persons, viz., (i) Zawing Rajkumar-eldest son (Petitioner), (ii) Jamaiko Singpho-2nd wife (Opposite Party) and (iii) Julung Rajkuhar — a minor son. The estate of late Bisagam Rajkumar consisted of movable and immovable properties as shown below—
1. Land (having Land Possession Certificate) measuring 288.80 Hectares leased out to Bisa Agro (P.) Ltd., Bordumsa for 50 years with effect from 1996 at annual rent of Rs. 3,21,000 (now it is Rs. 5,40,000 per annum).
2. Land (having no L.P.C.) approx 200 to 300 Hectares used and possessed by Smt. Jamaiko Singpho and drawing benefits therefrom.
3. A 3-storeyed market complex, enjoying rents and profits by Smt. Jamaiko Singpho from 2008 to up-to-date.
4. One R.C.C. building (under construction).
Movable Properties:
1. L.I.C. encashed by Smt. Jamaiko Singpho where she is nominee.
2. Bank balance in Apex Bank and State Bank of India which amounted to Rs. 11,08,383.
3. Shares in Bisa-Agro (P.) Ltd., 10,000 shares @ Rs. 10 value amounted to Rs. 1 lakh.
4. Scorpio car in the possession of Smt. Jamaiko Singpho.
3. The petitioner has contended that as per the customary law of Singpho community, on death of the head of the family, the entire property, movable and immovable, devolved on his eldest son (the petitioner) and accordingly, one Umpangam Singpho, CB (Gaon Bura) of Kherembisa village, Bordumsa, issued a certificate, dated 16.10.2008. However, the opposite party, the 2nd wife of the deceased applied for a Succession Certificate, without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner, for a Succession Certificate, in respect of the debts and securities, aforementioned, left by the deceased, whereupon the Deputy Commissioner, Changlang registered Civil Suit No. 13/2008 and granted a Succession Certificate by order, dated 1.7.2008. Based on the aforesaid Succession Certificate, the opposite party had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 11,08,383 from the bank account of the deceased.
4. Knowing about the issue of Succession Certificate in favour of the opposite party, the petitioner filed an application under section 383(b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for revocation of the Succession Certificate so issued and thereupon on 21.7.2009 Misc (J) Case No. 01/09 was registered. The Deputy Commissioner, Changlang, by order, dated 21.7.2009, while issuing show-cause notice also directed the opposite party to deposit the withdrawn amount of Rs. 11,08,383 in his court for safe custody till disposal of the case. However, the said amount was not deposited. The opposite party filed written objection on 16.3.2010, in the proceeding admitting that after obtaining the Succession Certificate, she had withdrawn the money from the bank and utilised the amount for construction of the under-progressed building of her deceased husband.
5. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner and the opposite party appeared before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Bordumsa on 27.1.2011. The opposite party, however, appeared along with her learned Advocate Sheo Kumar Agarwal. On being asked by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Changlang, Bordumsa, the petitioner put his signature on a document drafted by the learned Advocate for the opposite party, which was not read over and explained to him. A copy of the document so prepared was, of course, furnished to the petitioner and later on, he could know that the land and the lease rent of M/s. Bisa Agro (R) Ltd., Bordumsa had been purportedly partitioned amongst the heirs of late Bisagam Rajkumar and thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner, Changlang passed the impugned order, dated 27.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
