SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 937

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Dr. Prakash Soni – Appellant
Versus
Deepak Kumar & Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6388 of 2009
Decided On : 15-09-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant: Pratibha Jain, Adv.
For the Respondents: Shakil Ahmed Syed, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Succession certificate claimed on basis of a Will cannot be granted if execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

Headnote:Indian Succession Act – Section 372 – Succession certificate – Deceased, a teacher, dying on 18.11.2001 – Executing nomination papers in favour of appellant-husband on 3.3.1992 – Respondents, sons of brother of deceased, claiming succession on basis of alleged nomination executed just two days prior to her death and a Will alleged to have been executed on the date of death; all in hospital – Held, will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances – Also held, subsequent nomination papers not genuine – Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Para 6, 7, 9)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant’s wife was working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Girls Higher Secondary School. She died on 18.11.2001, on account of liver cancer and disease of Hepatitis `B'. The appellant and his wife did not have any issue, and hence the appellant being her husband and as her only successor claimed to be entitled to receive the retiral benefits, such as, Pension, G.P.F., Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Family Welfare Fund, Group Insurance Scheme account etc.

       Hence, the appellant filed an application before the Civil Judge, Class-I for grant of a succession certificate of his wife, so as to entitle him to receive her retiral benefits. The respondents herein, who were the sons of the brother of appellant’s wife also laid their claim on the basis of the will, said to have been executed by her on 18.11.2001, i.e., on the day of her death.

       The Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant for grant of a succession certificate, and allowed the counter claim put forth by the respondents.

       The appellant preferred Civil Appeal before the Additional District Court, Narsinghgarh, which came to be allowed.

       However, the judgment of the Additional District Court was set aside by the High Court and the order of the Civil Court rejecting the application for grant of a succession certificate filed by the appellant was upheld.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court failed to appreciate suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of the Will.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

This appeal arises out of the order dated 20.04.2006 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in Civil Revision No. 63/2005, reversing the order dated 8.1.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 80-A/2004, consequently restoring the order dated 11.07.2002 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge, Class-I, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh in Succession Case No. 3/2002.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are, that the appellant herein is the husband of Srimati Mooli Swarnkar, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Girls Higher Secondary School Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh; Srimati Mooli Swarnkar died on 18.11.2001, on account of liver cancer and disease of Hepatitis `B'. The married couple, i.e, the appellant and his wife - Srimati Mooli Swarnkar did not have any issue, and hence the appellant being her husband and as her only successor claimed to be entitled to receive the retiral benefits, such as, Pension, G.P.F., Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, Family Welfare Fund, Group Insurance Scheme account etc.

Hence, the appellant filed an application on 7.5.2002 before the Civil Judge, Class-I, Narsinghgarh, District Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for grant of a succession certificate of his wife late Srimati Mooli Swarnkar, so as to entitle him to receive the afore-mentioned retiral benefits. The respondents herein, who were the sons of the brother of late Srimati Mooli Swarnkar also laid their claim in respect of the afore-mentioned retiral benefits of late Srimati Mooli Swarnkar, on the basis of the will, said to have been executed by her on 18.11.2001, i.e., on the day of her death. In other words, the respondents filed counter claim in the application filed by the appellant under Section 372 of the Act. The respondents further claimed, that the deceased had submitted nomination forms dated 16.11.2001 (Ex. D/1 to D/5) to her employer in which the names of the respondents were mentioned as her nominees.

3. Learned Civil Judge, Narsinghgarh vide his order dated 9.10.2004 passed in Succession Case No.3/2002 dismissed the application filed by the appellant for grant of a succession certificate, and allowed the counter claim put forth by the respondents. Against the said order passed by the Civil Court, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No. 80-A/2004 before the Additional District Court, Narsinghgarh, which came to be allowed on 8.1.2005 and consequently the order of the Civil Court, dismissing the claim of the appellant and allowing the counter claim of the respondents was set aside. In effect, the Additional District Judge, Narsinghgarh ordered for grant of a succession certificate to the appellant. However, the judgment of the Additional District Court was set aside by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, as mentioned supra, in Civil Revision No. 63/2005 on 20.04.2006, and the order of the Civil Court rejecting the application for grant of a succession certificate filed by the appellant was upheld. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned advocates on both sides have taken us to the material available on the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the signature of Srimati Mooli Swarnkar affixed on Ex. D/6 (will in question), does not correspond to the signatures affixed on certain other documents. Learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the signatures of Srimati Mooli Swarnkar found on Ex. P/4, D/7 and D/8 do not tally with the signature found on Ex. D/6 (disputed signature). He further submitted that it was not at all possible for the deceased Srimati Mooli Swarnkar to execute the will on the date of its alleged execution, inasmuch as she was suffering from liver cancer and Hepatitis `B' disease and was not in a position to take any decision on her own free will and imme







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top