MANIPUR HIGH COURT
L.K. Mohapatra, C.J.
Smt. Kundrakpam (Ningol) Arambam Ongbi —Appellant
versus
Smt. Khundrakpam (Ningol) Indrani Devi —Respondent
M.A.F. No.1 of 2011
Decided on 18.3.2015
(ii) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 18 — Respondent daughter of late Amuba Singh through first wife — Only surviving heir through first wife respondent No.5 in Trial Court — Who abandoned his claim over property — HELD — Respondent No. 1 comes within definition of “full blood”— Whereas appellants come within definition of “half blood” — Under S. 18 of the Act respondent No. 1 — Who related to intestate by “full blood” has to get preference over heirs who related to intestate by half blood. (Para 8)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
L.K. Mohapatra, C.J.—This appeal arises out of judgment and order dt. 16.7.2011 passed by: the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Manipur East in Original (Succession) No. 9/2010/1/2011. The respondents in the Original (Succession) Suit are the appellants in this appeal.
2. The present respondent No. 1 had filed the application for grant of Succession Certificate under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in relation to a claim of Rs.10 lakh in form of death-cum-gratuity which late Dr. Kh. Gambhint Devi, Ex-Professor, Department of Adult Education, Manipur University had left. It is necessary to refer to the family genealogy for convenience and accordingly family genealogy is reproduced below:
From the Genealogy, It appears that late Kh. Amuba Singh had three wives, namely Smt. Nupimacha Devi, Smt. Tonsija Devi and Smt. Tombi Devi. The deceased, Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi is the daughter of late Kh. Amuba Singh from his first wife, Smt. Nupimacha Devi. Late Kh. Gambhini Devi was unmarried and died intestate on 1.9.2008 while working as Professor in the Department of Adult Education, Manipur University. Her death cum-retirement gratuity of Rs.10 lakh was not disbursed by the ManipurUniversity. According to the present respondent No.1, she and Shri Kh. Sudhendra (respondent No. 5 before the Trial Court) are the class-II heirs of Dr. Kh. Gambhtni Devi, Smt. Kh. (O) Medha Devi and Kumari Kh. Australia Devi and Kumari Kh. Lendi Devi (respondents 7, 8 and 9 before the Trial Court) are class-IV heirs and rest of the respondents before the Trial Court were class-Ill heirs. Her further case is that late Dr. Gambhini Devi suffered from prolonged Cancer and had borrowed huge amount of money for her treatment. After her death, the present respondent No. 1 performed her ‘Sradha’ ceremony and managed to pay back the loan incurred by her for her treatment. Accordingly, she filed the claim for grant of Succession Certificate on the ground that she being the class-II heir of late Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi and respondent No.5 before the Trial Court having abandoned his claim, she is only entitled to get the Succession Certificate and rest of the respondents are not entitled.
3. The contesting respondents before the Trial Court, who are appellants in this appeal the claim of the present respondent No.1 and submitted that late Kh. Amuba Singh was the common ancestor and therefore not only the present respondent but also the appellants are entitled to the issue of Succession Certificate in their favour and in order to receive the death cum-gratuity amount lying in the Manipur University of late Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi and all of them are equally entitled to the said amount.
4. The learned Addl. District Judge (FTC) framed three issues such as-:
(A) Whether Smt. Khundrakpam Ningol Ibemcha Devi (respondent No. 13 before Trial Court) is the adopted daughter of the deceased. Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi?
(B) Whether Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi died on 1.9.2008 leaving behind a sum of Rs.10 lakh as her death- cum-retirement gratuity?
(C) Whether present respondent No. 1 is entitled to the relief claimed?
On assessment of evidence, the learned Addl. District Judge, (FTC) found that the respondent No. 13 before the Trial Court had failed to prove that she is the adopted daughter of late Kh. Gambhini Devi and that late Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi died on 1.9.2008 while in service and her heirs were entitled to the death-cum-retirement gratuity amount. So far the issue No. 3 is concerned, referring to Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act; the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC) came to the conclusion that the present respondent No.1 is related to late Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi by full blood whereas others except respondent No. 5 before Trial Court, were related by half blood. Therefore, the present respondent No.1, who is related to late Kh. Gambhini Devi by full blood has preference over other relatives who are related to her half blood and accordingly granted Succes
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.