Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V.Nagarathna, Suraj Govindaraj, JJ.
K S Natraj S/o Late K M Somashekar – Appellant
Versus
NIL - Respondent
M.F.A. NO.2079 OF 2019 (ISA)
Decided On : 21-10-2019
Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 372 and 371 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17, 60, 60(2) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 74, 68, 76, 49, 60(2) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 74, 79, 76 and 77 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 3 - Will - Partition Deed - Whether Succession Certificate can be issued in favour of petitioner - Whether those signatories were alive or dead - Whether it is necessary to examine parties to a registered partition deed in a proceeding for grant of Succession Certificate - Whether it is necessary to examine attesting witnesses to a registered partition deed in proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate - Whether it is necessary for service of notices to parties to a registered partition deed where property has been allocated to person seeking for Succession Certificate – Held, A Succession Certificate is issued to legal heirs of a deceased person to establish authenticity of heirs and give them authority to inherit or prosecute debts, securities and/or other assets of deceased - Purpose of Succession Certificate is limited to such debts and securities which deceased was entitled to and facilitates collection of debt on succession and affords protection to parties paying a debt to such recognized Succession Certificate holders against any claim by third parties - It is well known that most of companies would request for a Succession Certificate before transferring any security in name of a person claiming to be an heir of deceased - Procedure for consideration of an application for Succession Certificate is prescribed in terms of Section 373 of Succession Act - In event District Judge being of opinion that any other person ought to be served with notice in matter, he should order so - In present matter, District Judge could not have placed said onus on appellant if he had any doubt - In fact, a perusal of impugned order does not indicate any doubt but only requires an examination of signatories to partition deed by abundant caution - Trial Court held that other signatories to partition deed had either to be examined or an affidavit on their behalf had to be filed in proceedings indicating their ‘no objection’ to issuance of Succession Certificate in name of appellant - In Court considered view, and as discussed above, no such requirement is contemplated, more so, when even after issuance of a public notice inviting objections, none appeared or objected to issuance of Succession Certificate - There is no requirement either to examine either of signatories to partition deed or an affidavit on their behalf to be filed in support of petition seeking for issuance of Succession Certificate when they have not objected to public notice issued through court - Public notice itself being a general notice inviting any member of general public to object if they so desire, there is no requirement to once again issue a specific notice to other executants of registered document - Point No. 3 is hence answered in negative - Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
1. The appellant had filed the proceeding under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Succession Act’ for the sake of brevity) for issuance of a Succession Certificate which came to be numbered as P&SC No.209/2018. The said P&SC No.209/2018 came to be dismissed by X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by way of its order dated 10.01.2019. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred.
2. The appellant has stated that he is the son of late Sri. K.M. Somashekar, who was holding equity shares in M/s Titan Watches Limited (now Titan Company Limited), as also several movable and immovable properties.
3. Late K.M. Somashekar was married to Smt. Deviramma and they had two sons and a daughter (including the appellant). Late K.M.Somashekar expired in the year 1998, Smt. Deviramma also expired subsequently. He states that his sister and daughter of late K.M.Somshekar, Smt.Bhagya had predeceased her father leaving behind two sons. He has further stated that late K.M.Somashekar did not leave behind any Will. After his death, his widow, two sons and two sons of deceased daughter together partitioned his assets under a registered partition deed dated 7.11.2002.
4. As per the registered partition deed dated 7.11.2002, K.S.Prakash, youngest son of late K.M. Somashekar was allotted immovable property and the shares were allotted to the appellant.
5. In pursuance of the said partition deed, the Appellant had requested the Registrar of M/s Titan Company Limited to transfer the shares into his name on 26.10.2017. When the said Authority insisted on the petitioner obtaining a Succession Certificate, appellant had issued a legal notice on 2.05.2018 once again calling upon the Registrar to transfer the shares. Registrar again reiterated his stand requesting the appellant to obtain a Succession Certificate. Hence, the appellant filed P&SC No.209/2018 seeking for a Succession Certificate.
6. Following the procedure, after filing such a petition, the trial Court directed the appellant to take out a paper publication which was published on 21.06.2018 calling upon the general public to submit objections, if any, to the grant of Succession Certificate in favour of the appellant. Though the said publication was taken, none appeared nor were objections received to such grant.
7. Appellant examined himself as PW-1 and got Exs.P1 to P11 marked and thereafter, when the matter was posted for arguments, addressed his arguments and also filed written submissions.
8. The trial Court framed the following points for its determination based on the evidence on record and arguments:
(ii) What order?
9. The trial Court answered in the negative to the first point on the ground that the signatories to the partition deed were not made parties to the petition, the trial Court also observed that it was not known whether those signatories were alive or dead and if dead, then, participation of their legal heirs would be necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The trial Court also observed that the appellant had failed to examine any of the attesting witnesses to the partition deed or other parties to it, so as to prove the execution thereof. While observing that the partition deed was to be proved, the trial court held that it is not possible to hold that the petitioner alone was entitled for the Succession Certificate so as to claim rights over the movable shares. The trial court further observed that merely because notice was taken through paper publication and none appeared would not mean that nobody is having an interest in the litigation.
10. On the above grounds, the trial court was of the opinion that the petition was not maintainable and hence, answered point No.1 in the negative and therefore, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 372 of the Act vide order dated 10.01.2019.
11. Aggrieved
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
