Summary
Nanak Chand, father of the appellant, a displaced person from West Pakistan and having a verified claim in his name for some land, disappeared some time in December 1954.
A report about his disappearance was lodged by the appellants brother, Dewan Chand, Respondent No. 2, with the local police in Punjab. The police made an enquiry in the matter and ultimately gave out that Nanak Chand could not be traced. In response to a notice issued in the year 1956 in suo moto revision in regard to the verified claim, in the absence of Nanak Chand, Dewan Chand appeared and alleged bat Nanak Chand had died leaving behind three sons including him as the only legal heirs. Dewan Chand produced a certificate to the effect that Nanak Chand had died one year and 10 months prior to 25th October, 1956. The certificate Was issued on his request by some respectable persons of the place where the family once resided. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, Delhi, by his order dated 27th October, 1956 allowed the application for substitution and directed the three sons to be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased Nanak Chand although Nanak Chand had left behind three sons, three daughters including the appellant and his widow. The appellant, in an attempt to have her name substituted, filed a revision application against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under s 5 of the Displaced Persons (Claims) Supplementary Act, 1954. By his order dated 25th September 1965, the Chief Settlement Commissioner confirmed the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 27th October, 1956 and dismissed the revision application of the appellant without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition and Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The High Court observed that the Additional Settlement Commissioner acted rightly in relying upon the death certificate produced by Dewan Chand and substituting the sons of Nanak Chand as heirs of the deceased of his certified claim. Hence this appeal, Allowing the appeal, 764^HELD: A certificate given by respectable persons of the place where the deceased once resided, to say the least, is not admissible in evidence, Sec. 35 of the evidence Act provides that an entry in any public or other official book, register, or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty, specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or record is kept, is itself a relevant fact. [769B-C]In the instant case a certificate by certain respectable person of the place where the family once resided does not satisfy the requirements of s. 35 of the evidence Act. There is no proof that any statutory duty was cast upon the person issuing the certificate to keep a record of birth and death and therefore, the certificate of death has no evidentiary value. It is very easy for a person to obtain a death certificate from the so-called respectable persons in order to grab the property. If according to Dewan Chand, Nanak Chand had died he must also indicate where did he die and it is the place of his death which will be relevant and not the place of his birth or residence. The certificate obviously is not of the place where Nanak Chand died. The authorities have gravely erred in relying upon the certificate of death which was inadmissible in evidence.[769D-E]To see whether daughters would be entitled to interest in the property left by Nanak Chand will depend upon the death of Nanak Chand before or after the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act and to decide as to when Nanak Chand died it was absolutely essential that an opportunity should have been offered to the appellant in accordance with the principles of natural justice. [769H; 770A]See the full content of this document
Extract
Smt. Raj Rani VS. Chief Settlement Commissioner Delhi And Ors.
PETITIONER: SMT. RAJ RANI Vs.RESPONDENT: CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER DELHI AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT03/05/1984BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J)BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J)DESAI, D.A.SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)CITATION: 1984 AIR 1234 1984 SCR (3) 763 1984 SCC (3) 619 1984 SCALE (1)815ACT: Evidence Act-S. 35-Scope of. Whether certificate of death given by respectable persons of the place where deceased once resided admissible in evidence. Held no.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 485 of 1971.From the Judgment and order dated the 29th January, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.8/70.D.D. Thakur, E.C. Agarwala and V.K. Panditta for the Appellant.Chaman Lal Itrora for the Respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byMISRA J. The present appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of D...
See the full content of this document