Bombay High Court: The petitioners-mother, and wife, sought directions to the respondents to transfer/transmit the investments of their son/husband, Manoj Zaverchand Dedhia, in the form of RBI Bonds, in the name of the petitioners, as Manoj took sanyas. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale, JJ., dismissed the petition and opined that it in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the first instance would not enter the arena of disputed claims between the parties. The Court left it open for the petitioners to have recourse to appropriate civil remedy before the appropriate Court/Forum.
Background
The petitioners submitted that Manoj was the ‘Karta’ of the Dedhia HUF and there were four members in the said family, Manoj, his wife, a daughter, and a son. In 2018 and 2019, Manoj’s daughter and son respectively took sanyas and thereafter, in 2022, even Manoj took sanyas and became a sadhu. The petitioners, that is, Manoj’s mother and wife submitted that Manoj renouncing worldly affairs amounted to his civil death and therefore, all his properties would devolve upon his other legal heirs, i.e., the petitioners.
It was submitted that prior to taking sanyas, Manoj sought to know the procedure of transmission of the RBI bonds to his legal heirs upon taking sanyas, from Respondent 3, HDFC Bank. However, the Bank did not accept sanyas as civil death and refused to record transmission of the RBI bonds to the petitioners. Upon Manoj taking sanyas, the petitioners, by a formal application, requested the Bank to transfer/transmit the bonds in their names. The petitioners’ grievance was that till date, the Bank failed to transfer/transmit the bonds to the petitioners and hence, had approached this Court by filing the present petition.
The respondents submitted that there was no declaration of Manoj being Karta of the Dedhia HUF and the date of maturity of the RBI bonds was 18-9-2026 and as per the guidelines issued by the RBI, the bonds were not transferable except in the case of natural death.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the question whether Manoj and his children had taken sanyas and renounced the world was a mixed question of fact and law. The Court noted that the petitioners had placed on record the photocopies of an invitation card of the Sanyas ceremony of Manoj; photographs of ceremony; an affidavit by Manoj stating his ‘No Objection’ to the names of the petitioners to be entered as ‘Holders’ of the RBI bonds, etc, however, the respondents did not recognize these documents as proof of Manoj taking sanyas.
The Court relied on Teesta Chattoraj v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1949, the Delhi High Court referring to Baldeo Prasad v. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, 1930 SCC OnLine All 128, observed that the mere fact that a person declared that he had become a sanyasi or that he had described himself as such, or wore clothes ordinarily worn by sanyasis would not make him a sanyasi. He must not only retire from worldly interests and become dead to the world, but to attain this he must perform necessary ceremonies without which renunciation would not be complete.
The Court opined that it in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the first instance would not enter the arena of disputed claims between the parties. The Court stated that the petitioners had other efficacious and appropriate remedy before appropriate forum/Court to adjudicate the disputed claims.
The Court thus dismissed the petition; however, the Court left it open for the petitioners to have recourse to appropriate civil remedy before the appropriate Court/Forum in relation to their grievance, which they had agitated in the present petition.
[Nirmla Zaverchand Dedhia v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 2319 of 2024, decided on 21-2-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Hitesh Solanki i/b Manoj Ashok Associates, for the Petitioners.
For the Respondents: Dhaval Patil i/b S. K. Ashar & Co., for Respondent 2; Ishwar Nankani, with Huzefa Khokhawala & Karan Parmar i/b Nankani & Associates, for Respondent 3; Ausha Amin, for UOI.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
