High Court Of Calcutta
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Pravendu Narayan Sinha
UMA RANI SETT - Appellant
Versus
DIPALI RANI SETT - Respondent
F. A. 24 Of 2005
Decided On : 12/09/2005
SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - ACT 39 CASE NO. 234 OF 1995 - EXTENDED SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - SHARE OF PLAINTIFFS IN SUSHIL'S PROPERTY - SECTION 372 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 376 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - SHARE OF PLAINTIFFS IN SUSHIL'S PROPERTY - DUTY OF CERTIFICATE HOLDER TO DISTRIBUTE ASSETS TO HEIRS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR SHARES.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming joint lawful ownership of 5/6th share in the total shares and securities left by Swarup Bikash Sett, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. They alleged that Swarup Bikash Sett, as the eldest son and karta of the Hindu Undivided Joint Family, took over the assets of Sushil Kumar Sett and used them for the benefit of all heirs, including himself. After his death, the defendants obtained an extended succession certificate for the shares and securities, which the plaintiffs challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiffs did not receive their 5/6th share in the property and that it was the duty of the defendants, as the heirs of Swarup Bikash Sett, to account for the assets dealt with by him by virtue of the succession certificate granted in his favor. The court found that the shares standing in the name of Swarup Bikash Sett were not transferred in the name of Sushil Kumar Sett and that the defendants had not paid anything to the plaintiffs after realization of the amount, if any, on the basis of the succession certificate granted in his favor.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a 5/6th share in the total shares and securities left by Swarup Bikash Sett? 2. Whether the defendants had the right to obtain an extended succession certificate for the shares and securities? 3. Whether the defendants had discharged their duty to distribute the assets to the heirs in accordance with their shares?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The mere grant of a succession certificate in favor of a co-sharer does not vest such co-sharer with the title of the property. It is the duty of the certificate holder to distribute the assets to the heirs in accordance with their shares. 2. The defendants failed to show that they had paid the 5/6th share of the assets to the plaintiffs. 3. The defendants abandoned their claim to the shares and securities in question in an earlier succession certificate application, and they did not give notice to the plaintiffs before obtaining the extended succession certificate.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed to the extent that the plaintiffs were declared to have a 5/6th share in Sushil Kumar Sett's property. The judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine the exact number of shares and securities held by Sushil Kumar Sett and Swarup Bikash Sett, the amount of money realized by Swarup Bikash Sett by virtue of the succession certificate, and the interest payable to the plaintiffs.
( 1 ) THIS first appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st May, 2004 passed by the learned judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2369 of 1997 thereby dismissing the said suit.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that they are joint lawful owners to the extent of 5/6th share (having 1/6th undivided share each) of the total shares and securities left by one Swarup Bikash Sett, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and for further declaration that the defendants had no right to have those shares or securities as absolute owners thereof on the strength of the extended succession certificate granted in Act 39 in Case no. 234 of 1995 arising out of Act 39 in Case No. 227 of 1975.
( 3 ) THE plaintiffs further prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their men and agent from giving effect to or further effect to or from acting upon the extended succession certificate issued in Act 39 in Case No. 245 of 1995.
( 4 ) THE case made out by the plaintiff-appellants may be summarized thus: (a) One Sushil Kumar Sett, the undisputed predecessor-in-interest of the parties died on 20th September, 1964 leaving one son and two daughters through his predeceased first wife, the second wife and one son and one daughter through the said second wife. The only son through the first wife namely, Swarup Bikash Sett subsequently died on 22nd March, 1971 leaving his widow and one daughter. (b) The plaintiffs are all the other heirs of Sushil Kumar Sett than his elder son, viz. Swarup Bikash Sett and the widow and the daughter of Swarup bikash Sett are the defendants in this suit. (c) On the death of Sushil Kumar Sett, Swarup Bikash Sett being the eldest son in the family through his first wife was the "karta" and accordingly, he took over the charge of all the assets left by Sushil Kumar Sett and used to look after, manage, control and supervise all the assets of the estate of Sushil kumar Sett in his capacity of as the "karta" of Hindu Undivided Joint Family. (d) On the death of Sushil Kumar Sett, an application was filed for grant of succession certificate for the purpose of receiving the debts and securities payable to the estate of Sushil Kumar Sett and the learned Court with the consent of other heirs granted succession certificate in favour of Swarup bikash Sett to receive those debts and securities. (e) Swarup Bikash Sett got those shares and securities of different companies standing in the name of Sushil Kumar Sett and subsequently, transferred those shares in his personal name with the understanding that Swarup bikash Sett would hold those shares and securities and other shares left by sushil Kumar Sett not for his personal benefits but for the benefit of all other heirs including himself. (f) Having obtained succession certificate in Act 39 Case No. 212 of 1966, swarup Bikash Sett reinvested the entire amount so realised by him from different companies, Bank Accounts, Life Insurance Corporation of India etc. in his own name and also used to collect monthly rental from different tenants from the estate of Sushil Kumar Sett and out of such total accumulation, made various investment in different money growing scheme of different companies in his personal name for the benefit of himself and also for the benefit of other heirs of Sushil Kumar Sett. (g) Subsequently, Swarup Bikash Sett died in 1971 leaving the defendants as his sole heirs and legal representatives and after such death, the defendant no. 1 being his widow duly filed an application under section 372 of the indian Succession Act for grant of succession certificate for receiving the debts and securities payable to Swarup Bikash Sett in her favour which was registered as Act 39 Case No. 227 of 1975 and in paragraph 4 of the said application, she categorically s
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.