Back
2007 Supreme(Bom) 894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(R.M. Savant, J.)
VAIJANTABAI w/o DEVlDAS KHANDARE — Petitioner.
vs.
JANARDHAN s/o FAKIRCHAND KHANDARE and another —Respondents
Civil Rev. Appeal No. 957 of 2001
Decided on 5-7-2007
For petitioner: Arun Dalal holding for V.D. Salunke
For respondent No.1: V. D. Patnoorkar
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish her relationship with the deceased in order to claim a succession certificate.
Headnote:
Succession Certificate - Dispute over entitlement to receive deceased's assets - Evidence Act, Section 50 - Summary of the legal provisions and their interpretations discussed by the court
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the issuance of a succession certificate to receive the assets of a deceased individual. The respondent claimed to be the only legal heir, while the petitioner objected, asserting herself and her minor sons as the legal heirs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove her relationship with the deceased, and the respondent, being the brother of the deceased, stood on a higher pedestal. The court dismissed the Revision Application and upheld the decision to grant the succession certificate to the respondent.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the rightful recipient of the deceased's assets and the validity of the petitioner's claim as the legal heir.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing a minimum of material evidence for a party to be entitled to a succession certificate. It also highlighted the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish her relationship with the deceased.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Application was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision to grant the succession certificate to the respondent. The petitioner was advised to approach the appropriate forum for a declaration regarding her relationship with the deceased and her minor children.
2. This Revision Application filed by the petitioner above named takes exception to the order dated 22-2-1999 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Parbhani. By the said order the Appeal filed by the respondent No.1 was allowed and the Succession certificate was directed to be issued in the name of the appellant i.e. Janardhan. The above Civil Revision Application was filed on 5-6-2000, ad-interim relief came to be granted on 12-4-2007 as the delay in filing the Civil Revision Application was condoned only in the year 2007. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is not in a position to make a statement as to whether the respondent No.1 has taken any steps pursuant to the issue of the succession certificate in his favour in respect of the debts and securities of the deceased Devidas.
3. The facts involved in the Revision are briefly stated thus :-
(I) The respondent No. 1 herein filed Misc. Application No.3 of 1985 before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Parbhani for getting succession certificate to receive the debts and securities left by his deceased brother K. Devidas who was serving in the South Central Railways and died on 10-5-1983 at Purna leaving behind his Provident fund amount and other dues totally amounting to Rs. 53,950/-.
(II) The respondent No.1 claimed that he is the only legal heir of the deceased K. Devidas and therefore entitled to receive his assets. In terms of the procedure prescribed a paper publication was issued in the local newspaper calling for objections. The petitioner herein appeared and filed at Objection Petition for herself and her two Sons namely Rahul and Chandrakant that she is the wife of the said Devidas and she is having two sons from him namely Rahul and Chandrakant. The petitioner herein therefore objected for issuance of succession certificate to the respondent No. I and prayed for the said certificate being issued in her name and in the name of her minor sons.
(III) The petitioner contended that she and her two sons are the only legal heirs of the deceased Devidas and that the respondent No. 1 intentionally has not mentioned about them only to deprive them of their legal right.
(IV) The respondent No. 1 herein replied to the said objection of the petitioner contending that the petitioner is falsely claiming as wife of the said Devidas. It was the further contention of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner is a lady of bad repute and that she was wife of one Hanumantappa, that she was having five children from him and that she was in the habit of deceiving people for extracting monies out of them by raising such objections.
(V) The respondent No.1 therefore prayed for dismissing the Objection Petition of the petitioner and the grant of succession certificate to him.
(VI) The learned Civil Judge Senior Division considering the documents filed by the present petitioner as also considering the documents filed by the South Central Railways accepted that the petitioner is the wife of the said Devidas and also on the basis of the presumption under section 50 of the Evidence Act accepted the fact that she was the wife of K. Devidas and therefore rejected the Application of the respondent No. 1 herein and granted the succession certificate in favour of the petitioner and her minor sons Rahul and Chandrakant. The learned Judge further directed, that the respondent No.1 if he was so entitled to in law can file a Suit for partition and possession. The learned Judge therefore by his order dated 6-11-1995 granted the succession certificate in favour of the respondent No.1.
(VII) Being aggrieved by the said order dated 6-11-1995, passed in the said Misc. Application No. 3 of 1985 the respondent No. 1 preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1995 before the learned Additional District Judge, Parbhani. The learned II Additional District Judge, Parbhani by the impugned order dated 22-2-1999 al
