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

2023 Supreme(AP) 518

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Madipalli Annapurna – Appellant
Versus
Addepalli Mani Kumari – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2831 of 2022
Decided On : 31-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Eerla Satheesh Kumar, Advocate

The Court cannot direct the deposit of charges for succession certificate for the entire claim/security when the petitioner is claiming only a portion of the security.

Headnote:

SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTION 372 - COURT FEE - CHARGES FOR SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - DEPOSIT OF CHARGES - COURT DIRECTED DEPOSIT OF CHARGES FOR ENTIRE CLAIM/SECURITY IS UNSUSTAINABLE - COURT SHOULD DIRECT DEPOSIT OF CHARGES ONLY FOR THE CLAIMED PORTION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner filed a Succession OP under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, seeking a succession certificate for 50% of the shares and bonus shares held by the deceased, Madipalli Sri Krishna Murthy. The Court below directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.34, 75, 200.00 towards succession certificate charges, which was challenged in the revision petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the direction of the Court below to deposit Rs.34, 75, 200.00 towards succession certificate charges for the entire claim/security was unsustainable. The Court should have directed the petitioner to deposit charges only for the claimed portion, which was 50% of the total claim.

Issues: Whether the direction of the Court below to deposit Rs.34, 75, 200.00 towards succession certificate charges for the entire claim/security was sustainable?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the judgment in K.Girija Kumari Vs. Konuru Swarajya Lakshmi, 2004 (3) ALD 249, which held that an application for a succession certificate can be made for a portion of the security due to the deceased creditor. The Court also noted that the petitioner was claiming only 50% of the shares and bonus shares, and therefore, directing the petitioner to deposit charges for the entire claim was unsustainable.

Final Decision: The Court disposed of the revision petition at the admission stage and directed the Court below to direct the petitioner to deposit 50% of the claim amount towards charges of succession certificate. On deposit of such amount, the Court below was directed to dispose of the OP on merits in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner in unnumbered SOP in S.R.No.1370 dtd. 18/4/2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Revision petitioner filed Succession OP under Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short "Act 1925") praying the Court to award succession certificate in favour of petitioner and respondent No.1 holding that they are only legal heirs of late Madipalli Sri Krishna Murthy and issue succession certificate for 50% of the shares mentioned in the schedule of late Sri Krishna Murthy held in respondents 2 to 15 companies or its successor companies including 50% of any bonus shares allotted to the original holdings and unclaimed dividends over the said shares.

3. In SOP, it was mentioned that petitioner and 1st respondent are daughters of late Madipalli Sri Krishna Murthy. The said Krishna Murthy died on 28/11/2016 at Bhimavaram. During the lifetime of said Sri Krishna Murthy, he acquired shares mentioned in the petition. A fixed Court fee of Rs.10.00 as per Schedule-II, Article-2 (2) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short "CF Act")

4. By order dtd. 16/8/2022, the Court below directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.34, 75, 200.00 towards succession certificate charges and adjourned the matter to 29/9/2022. Since succession certificate charges are not paid, it was again adjourned to 30/12/2022. Aggrieved by the said docket order dtd. 16/8/2022 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.34, 75, 200.00 towards succession certificate charges, the present revision is filed.

5. Heard Sri Eerla Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that succession OP is filed seeking certificate in favour of petitioner and 1st respondent for 50% of shares and 50% of bonus shares in favour of Madipalli Sri Krishna Murthy, however, the Court below directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.34, 75, 200.00 towards succession certificate charge, at the initial stage is bad in law. He would also submit that payment of deposit would arise at the time of issuance of certificate as per Sec. 372 of the Act 1925 and thus, prayed to set aside the order.

7. Now, the point arise for consideration is:

    Whether the direction of the Court below to deposit Rs.34, 75, 200.00 towards succession certificate when the petitioner claimed 50% is sustainable?

8. In K.Girija Kumari Vs. Konuru Swarajya Lakshmi, 2004 (3) ALD 249 . learned single Judge of the composite High Court held thus:

    5. The succession certificate, if granted by the Court would entitle the petitioner therein to receive the debt or security (for short security) claimed in the O.P. It is for this reason that Court fee is required to be paid while presenting the application. Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 requires the petitioner to state the relevant particulars such as time of death, the particulars of other family members etc. One of the important particulars is the one provided for under Clause (d) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 namely "The right in which the petitioner claims". This has to be stated in precise form. The deceased person may have left vast security behind him. If the applicant alone is entitled for the entire security, the Court fee needs to be paid on such an amount.

    6. However, where the security is to be distributed among various persons, each person claiming the succession certificate corresponding to their share cannot be required to pay Court fee on the entire amount of security. If such is the course of action is to be adopted, a situation may arise where the amount of Court fee may be equal to, or even exceed the amount representing security left by the deceased, if there exist number of claimants. For example, if there are 20 successors entitled to share the security and if each one of them is required to pay the Court fee at 6% on the entire amount, the Court fee would

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