Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Deepesh Maheswari And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Renu Maheswari And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4135 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 11006 of 2021)
Decided On : 01-04-2026
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order IX Rule XIII – Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Sections 372 and 383 – Setting aside ex-parte decree – Grant of Succession Certificate by ex-parte order – Primary requirements of application under Order IX Rule XIII CPC is whether summons were duly served and whether there is sufficient cause that prevented the party from appearing in Court – Where an application is defective or material facts have been suppressed or misstated, certificate issued pursuant thereto is liable to be revoked under Section 383 of Act – Factual matrix of present case squarely justifies invocation of said provision – It is only upon attaining majority that appellant acquired legal capacity to challenge the proceedings and accordingly initiated present action – There is nothing on record to suggest any collusion between minor and his mother – Minor cannot be expected to respond to a public notice or initiate legal proceedings independently – Conclusions drawn by courts below suffer from serious legal infirmities – Impugned order quashed and set aside and ex-parte order granting Succession Certificate quashed and set aside and matter restored to its original number. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order IX Rule XIII and Section 96 – Setting aside ex-parte decree – Scope of proceedings under Section 96 of CPC and Order IX Rule XIII CPC are distinct – Order IX Rule XIII CPC confers wider jurisdiction, enabling applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance and seek setting aside of an ex-parte decree. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal questions correctness of concurrent rejection of application under Order IX Rule XIII Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by present appellant before First Civil Judge, Class-I, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Case No.08 of 2014 as per order dated 14th October 2014 as upheld by Fourth Additional District Judge, Shivpuri, in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2018 in terms of order dated 10th January, 2019, and by High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, in Civil Revision No.376 of 2019 by order dated 31st October 2019.
Findings of Court:
Considering that the matter pertains to year 2011, parties are directed to extend full cooperation to ensure expeditious disposal. Concerned Court is requested to decide the matter preferably within a period of one year from the date of appearance of parties.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - Appeal challenges concurrent rejection of application under Order IX Rule XIII CPC to set aside ex-parte Succession Certificate granted under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act (!) (!) (!) - Respondents (daughters) applied for Succession Certificate claiming retiral benefits of deceased father, stating mother predeceased him; court granted it ex-parte despite official records naming wife as Malti Maheswari (!) - Appellant No.1 was a minor (aged 12) at the time, not impleaded; public notice issued but did not specify deceased's name clearly, and minor legally incapacitated from responding independently (!) (!) - Lower courts rejected Order IX Rule XIII application, noting service and prior appeal participation; High Court held minor not a necessary party as he claimed no rights (!) (!) (!) - Primary requirements under Order IX Rule XIII CPC: whether summons duly served and sufficient cause for non-appearance (!) - Succession Certificate liable to revocation under Section 383 if application defective, facts suppressed/misstated; here, discrepancies like misstating minor's mother as wife of another and non-impleadment of minor (!) (!) - Scope of Section 96 CPC and Order IX Rule XIII distinct; latter confers wider jurisdiction to show sufficient cause for non-appearance (!) - No evidence of collusion between minor and mother; minor attained majority before challenging (!) - Supreme Court allowed appeal, quashed ex-parte Succession Certificate, restored matter for expeditious disposal within one year (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal questions the correctness of the concurrent rejection of an application under Order IX Rule XIII Code of Civil Procedure, 19081[CPC], filed by the present appellant before the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Case No.08 of 2014 as per order dated 14th October 2014 as upheld by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Shivpuri, in Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2018 in terms of order dated 10th January, 2019, and by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, in Civil Revision No.376 of 2019 by order dated 31st October 2019.
3. The respondents No.1 and No. 2, namely Renu and Jyoti Maheswari respectively, had filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 19252[372. Application for certificate.-
(1) Application for such a certificate shall be made to the District Judge by a petition signed and verified by or on behalf of the applicant in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (5 of 1908.) for the signing and verification of a plaint by or on behalf of a plaintiff, and setting forth the following particulars, namely--
(a) the time of the death of the deceased;
(b) the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death and, if such residence was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge to whom the application is made, then the property of the deceased within those limits;
(c) the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residences;
(d) the right in which the petitioner claims;
(e) the absence of any impediment under section 370 or under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment, to the grant of the certificate or to the validity thereof if it were granted; and
(f) the debts and securities in respect of which the certificate is applied for.
(2) If the petition contains any averment which the person verifying it knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, that person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 198 of the Indian Penal Code. (45 of 1860.)
(3) Application for such a certificate may be made in respect of any debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof.] to be able to receive the retiral benefits of their father late Mr. Omprakash Maheshwari, who passed away on 4th April 2011, from Respondent No.3-Madhya Pradesh Central Electricity Distribution Company, where the deceased had superannuated after working as a lineman. It was their contention that they were the daughters of the deceased and that their mother (his wife), namely Asha Maheswari, had predeceased him on 3rd October 2006. Respondent No.3 opposed this on the ground that in the official records the name of his wife is one Mrs. Malti Maheswari and therefore, only she is entitled to the benefits as may be payable by them. The Court, having considered evidence, granted the Succession Certificate.
4. It was to set aside this Certificate that the application under Order IX Rule XIII CPC was filed since Mrs. Malti Maheshwari, did not appear before the concerned court. The First Civil Judge, Class-I, Shivpuri, rejected the application observing that an appeal had been preferred against the grant of Succession Certificate in which Mrs. Malti Maheshwari appeared through counsel. As such, they could not lay challenge thereto, by way of an application under Order IX Rule XIII CPC.
5. On appeal, the District Judge, upheld the above order observing that the evidence on record clearly showed that Mrs. Malti Maheshwari, was duly served and the notice mentioned the date of hearing as 25th August 2011. No reason has been put forth for non-appearance on the appointed day. Still further, it was observed that since she had been party to the appeal against order granting Succession Certificate, it was not open for her to subsequently challenge the same by way of an application under Order IX Rule XIII CPC.
6. In terms of the impugned judgment, the Hi
(1) Grant of Succession Certificate by ex-parte order – Where an application is defective or material facts have been suppressed or misstated, certificate issued pursuant thereto is liable to be revo....
Succession Certificate – Courts are required to deal with application under Section 372 of Succession Act in a summary manner without asking for strict proof as contemplated under Indian Evidence Act....
judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court having come to the conclusion that the proceedings for obtaining Succession Certificate was defective and the Certificate was obtained ....
Mandatory disclosure of near relatives is essential for succession certificate applications under the Act.
The deposit of the sum under Section 379(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for the issuance of a Succession Certificate under Section 372 is not mandatory and does not affect the maintainability....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the proper consideration and application of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Bombay Regulation VIII of 1827 in matters ....
Nominees under insurance policies do not hold beneficial interest; legal heirs must pursue civil suits for rights determination despite summary nature of succession certificate proceedings.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
