IMPORTANT POINT
An acquitted individual cannot be disqualified from inheriting property under the Hindu Succession Act, despite prior accusations, if no appeal against acquittal is pending.

ORDER :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.06.2007 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur in Succession Certificate Case No.28 of 2006, whereby the learned Court below has refused to grant the succession certificate to the appellant/ applicant in regard to the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-in fixed deposit with the Union Bank of India jointly in the name of the appellant and her deceased husband.

2. The brief facts leading to this Miscellaneous Appeal are that the appellant P. Chanda Rao had filed the application for grant of Succession Certificate under the provision of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act with these averments that her husband died on 20.06.2004 and after his death he left behind him his wife, two daughters and one son, all three children were minor at that time and all were residing with the applicant/ appellant. Besides leaving his wife and the minor children, the deceased had also left his father Mr. P. Ramchandra Rao, who was alive at that time. The husband of the appellant and the appellant herself had initially deposited Rs.50,000/-each for five year in fixed deposit and that account was either or survivor. The deceased had not executed any will in regard to the amount deposited in fixed deposit and the prayer was sought to issue the succession certificate in regard to the matured amount, which was Rs.2,50,000/-. The details of the same is given at the foot of the application in the schedule. All the requisite formalities were completed before the learned lower Court.

3. On behalf of the appellant in oral evidence examined A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao herself and A.W.-2, Bhuneshwar Rao. In documentary evidence adduced the fixed deposit certificate and death certificate of P. Ratna Rao @ John. No evidence oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the respondent/ opposite party.

4. The learned Trial Court after hearing the rival submissions of both parties, passed the impugned judgment on 11.06.2007 and dismissed the application filed for issuance of succession certificate.

5. Aggrieved from the impugned judgment, this Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is bad in the eyes of law. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record and on the basis of erroneous findings refused the prayer for issuance of Succession Certificate.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

7. To decide the legality and propriety of impugned order the evidence adduced by the parties is reproduced here under:

7.1 A.W.-1, P. Chanda Rao, in her examination-in-chief, says that her husband died on 20.06.2004 and after his death he had left behind his wife, two daughters and one son, all the children were minor at that time. Her mother-in-law had died and father-in-law was alive. In cross-examination, this witness stated that her husband was murdered. In that case, she was also accused. She was acquitted in that case. She denied the suggestion that the Hon’ble High Court again remanded the case for re-trial to the learned Court below.

7.2 P.W.-2, Bhuneshwar Prasad, in his examination-in-chief, says that P. Chanda Rao and her husband P. Ratna Rao had joint fixed account, in which, the amount of Rs.2,50,000/-is deposited. There were five policies of Rs.50,000/-each fixed deposit, the receipt number were 505903020020015 (15 to 19). This said amount was initially deposited on 22.09.1999. This policy was ‘either or survivor’. Deposit form is in signature of Clerk Arvind Kumar and is in his handwriting. He identifies the same and marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination, this witness says that this Form was not filled in his presence. In this account, no one was nominee.

8. From the very perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, it is found that the Succ