The court held that property claimed under a valid registered Will and sale deed cannot be declared escheat if a legal heir exists, emphasizing the validity of registered documents.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

1. This is defendants’ Second Appeal, wherein the defendants have questioned the propriety of the judgement rendered by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 23 of 2012, Meenakshi Chaudhary v. State of Uttarakhand and another , which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on 30^th March 2013. The said judgement was put to challenge in a Civil Appeal by the Defendants/appellants being Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2013, State of Uttarakhand and another v. Meenakshi Chaudhary . The said Appeal too was dismissed by the Court of 4^th Additional District Judge, Dehradun impugned judgement order dated 25^th November, 2014, thereby dismissing the Appeal and had affirmed the decree of declaration rendered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by the learned trial Court.

2. The brief facts, which require for consideration before this Court in the present Second Appeal is that the plaintiff/respondent herein on 24^th January 2012, had instituted a Suit being Suit No. 23 of 2012, Meenakshi Choudhary v. State of Uttarakhand and others, whereby she has sought a decree of declaration of a right in relation to the property, which has been more particularly, described at the foot of the plaint constituting, being the property bearing Municipal No. 43 new number 127, Guru Road, Patel Nagar, Dehradun, the part of which has been claimed by the plaintiff/respondent in her pleading, which has been purchased by her virtue of a sale deed dated 8^th July, 2008 and the remaining part i.e. an area equivalent to 249.07 square metres having an area of 13.38 square metres which is being vested with the plaintiff/respondent by virtue of a registered Will dated 28^th November 2007. The contention of the plaintiff/respondent in the Suit was that the declaration which has been sought for by the defendant to the Suit by treating the property as to be an “escheat” property by virtue of the Case No. 1 of 2011, State v. Property No. 43 (Old No.), New No. 127, Guru Road, Patel Nagar, Dehradun preferred under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was sought to be declared as a nonest decree being rendered on 1^st August 2011, and to be declared as to be “null and void”.

3. She has contended that since the property in question stood vested in her in pursuance to the unassailed Will dated 28^th November 2007 and the sale deed dated 8^th July 2008, the property in dispute will never fall to be within the ambit of the definition of “Escheat” property under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which deals with the “escheat” property.

4. Before venturing further, it would be relevant and essential to refer Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which reads as under:-

“29 Failure of heirs .—If an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the government; and the government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject. State Amendments Chapter IIA Andhra Pradesh: After Chapter II, insert the following Chapter, namely:—"Chapter IIA Succession by survivorship”

5.