A man had to fight a legal battle for nearly three years to prove that he is son of his deceased mother.

Prateek Kohli was granted the succession certificate recently after a Delhi court declared him a legal heir of Veena Kohli, who died on November 19, 2015.

Prateek's advocate, Kumar Mihir told IANS that he had approached a civil judge in Karkardooma in 2016 seeking succession certificate in favour of the appellant Prateek.

However, on November 17, 2018, Civil Judge dismissed his plea, primarily for the reason that he had failed to prove that he is the son of deceased Veena Kohli.

Prateek's advocate Mihir has approached Karkardooma's Additional District Judge (ADJ) Sumit Dass on December 24, 2018 challenging the trial court order.

Judge Dass, in his recently-pronounced order, relied on the copy of ration card and CBSE certificate and declared Prateek as legal heir of the woman.

The ADJ set aside order of the Civil Judge dated November 17, 2018.

Judge Dass said: "I am constrained to pass the aforesaid observations as in my opinion the trial court not only had gravely erred but the expression and final conclusion on a very sensitive subject were passed cursorily/mechanically."

"There is a copy of the ration card on record which shows that head of family of Suresh Kohli and Prateek Kohli and the appellant (Prateek) name is stated to be his son," Judge Dass said.

"Apart whereof I may note that petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the CBSE certificate wherein the name of the father and mother of the appellant have been respectively stated."

The court held that these documents are more than sufficient to prove the relation which the appellant had with the deceased.

The court also relied on the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate and said that the certificate use the word "it appears that Veena Kohli expired on November 19, 2015 leaving behind following legal heirs."

The court said that the certificate has been issued by the government authority after due verification upon the orders of the court and it categorically mentions that the petitioner is the son of Veena Kohli - a valid presumption can be attached under provisions of of the Indian Evidence Act.

"Such a document cannot be disbelieved merely on such trifle grounds. The word 'appears' is not intended/inserted for the reason that it has no value but to take note of the possibility that there may be an isolated instance where the name of the LR (Legal Representative) may be skipped or is not apparent during the enquiry carried out at the time of issuance of the survivor certificate," the court said.

The ADJ court come down heavily on trial court order and said: "I may lastly add that the courts have to do substantive justice between the parties. It is imperative that the faith of the litigating parties remains/they continue to repose in the justice dispensation system."

"The observations penned down by trial court to the extent of disbelieving that the appellant (Prateek) is the son of the deceased Veena Kohli is one extreme view which is not based on the correct appraisal of the material available on record," the court said.

"It is a finding which otherwise also one has to return with caution and the words so chosen while expressing the same should show deliberation and caution."

(Amiya Kumar Kushwaha can be reached at amiya.k@ians.in)

--IANS

ak/akk

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)