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

1960 Supreme(Pat) 203

PATNA HIGH COURT
N.L.Untwalia, J.
Deo Kumar Singh
Versus
Kailash Singh
Civil Revision No. 739 of 1960 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 29, 1960

The main legal point established is that on the death of an applicant for a succession certificate, the proceeding lapses and there can be no substitution of the heirs or the alleged heirs of the applicant.

Headnote:

Substitution - Succession Certificate - The court accepted the point that on the death of an applicant for a succession certificate, the proceeding lapses and there can be no substitution of the heirs or the alleged heirs of the applicant.

Fact of the Case:

The court set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge of Saran passed in Succession Certificate Case No. 40 of 1956.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the proceeding lapses on the death of an applicant for a succession certificate and there can be no substitution of the heirs or the alleged heirs of the applicant.

Issues: The issue was whether the proceeding can continue and heirs can be substituted after the death of the applicant for a succession certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the authority of Sm. Fatemanesha Begum V/s. Sk. Mahidin, 48 Cal WN 673, which supported the view that the proceeding lapses on the death of the applicant and there can be no substitution of heirs.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application and set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge of Saran.

Judgment

N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. In my opinion, the point urged on behalf of the petitioner on the authority of Sm. Fatemanesha Begum V/s. Sk. Mahidin, 48 Cal WN 673 (1), that, on the death of an applicant for a succession certificate the proceeding lapses and there can be no substitution of the heirs or the alleged heirs of the applicant, has got substance and must be accepted. No authority taking a contrary view has been cited before me. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court. I, therefore, allow this application, set aside the order dated the 28th May, 1960, of the learned Additional District Judge of Saran passed in Succession Certificate Case No. 40 of 1956. There will be no order as to costs.

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