Pawan Gupta @ Pawan Kumar @ Parveen Kumar v. State

1. The appellant was the petitioner in a petition filed in the trial court for grant of letter of administration to the estate of the deceased one Sh. Lakhmi Chand. The letter of administration was claimed to the estate of Sh. Lakhmi Chand who was the owner of a plot admeasuring 48 sq. mtrs., Plot no. 28, Pocket No.2, Block Nil, Sector-22, Rohini, Delhi. Appellant-petitioner claimed himself to be the son of the deceased Lakhmi Chand. Appellantpetitioner however claims that he had three names i.e Pawan Gupta, Pawan Kumar and Parveen Kumar and which have been disbelieved by the trial 2014:DHC:155 court.

2. The relevant observations of the court below holding that the petitioner had failed to establish his identity and lineage from Sh. Lakhmi Chand are in paras 8,14,15 and 17 of the impugned judgment and the same read as under:- “8. In the instant case the petitioner has claimed himself to be the only legal heir of deceased Lakhmi Chand, who was allotted plot no. 28, pkt. 02, Block Nil, Sector 22, measuring 48 sq. mtrs. Situated at Rohini, Delhi, by DDA which was transferred in his name by the DDA vide its letter dated 14.07.05 bearing no.21(776)89/LAB(RO)/3141 but later on DDA had informed the petitioner vide letter dated 19/4/06 bearing no.F.21(776)89/LAB(RO)/6735, that mutation done in his name in respect of said property was withdrawn and clarification was sought regarding his identity. The case of the petitioner is that an affidavit to this effect was submitted before DDA that he is known by three names i.e Pawan Gupta, Parveen Kumar and Pawan Kumar but restoration of the mutation in the name of the petitioner in respect of the said plot was refused.

13. ………………….

14. In the present case, there is another aspects of the matter that petitioner is required to prove this fact that he is known by all the above said three names and he is the same person in a properly constituted proceedings. There is no cogent evidence on record to prove that the identity of the petitioner is known by all three names.

15. The suspicious circumstances are a presumptions to hold against the petitioner. Greater is the suspicion, heavier would be the onus to be discharged by the petitioner. In the instant case, in the absence of such evidence to remove the suspicion from the mind of the court regarding the identity of the petitioner which is doubtful. I am of the view that an explanation given by the petitioner in this regard to the DDA was not accepted by the authority and the same is also not reasonably acceptable by this court in the Succession proceedings.

16. ……………………

17. In the instant case, the petitioner has created suspicion in the mind of the court and has not brought any cogent evidence to remove the suspicion that he is known by all the abovesaid three names and is the same person. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the petitioner has not brought any independent witness into the witness box to prove this fact that he is known by all the three names, i.e., Parveen Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Pawan Gupta and is the same person.”

3. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order because it is indeed suspicious and mysterious as to a person to be known by as many as three names and two of which are completely diverse.

4. In view of the fact that the appellant had moved an application for additional evidence being CM No. 10588/2013, I went through the same and there is no ground to allow the application because this two page application except stating that additional evidence is required to be allowed, does not state that what is the documentary evidence which would be led to ensure the identity of the appellant taken with the lineage from the deceased Sh. Lakhmi Chand.

5. I may note that it was also incumbent upon the appellant to show in the trial court what was the residential address of the deceased Lakhmi Chand with convincing proof thereof in the form of an election identity card or passport and so on and then further to show that the address of deceased Lakhmi Chand was the same as the residential address of the appellantpetitioner. Unless such co-relation with address is established, there is sufficient reason for the trial court to hold that the appellant-petitioner failed to prove his identity and lineage from Sh. Lakhmi Chand, and therefore, to such a person letter of administration cannot be granted.

6. In view of the above, application for additional evidence as also this appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

JANUARY 09, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib