Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Ishan Chandra Das, JJ.
Rama Paul @ Pal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Alok Narayan Chowdhury & Ors. – Respondents
F.M.A.T. 600 of 2013 (CAN 2387 of 2016)
Decided on : 02-12-2016.
INHERITANCE - SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 114 - SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTION 372 - Widow's claim to retiral benefits of deceased husband based on succession certificate - Documents indicating marriage and relationship - Legality and sufficiency of evidence - Interpretation of relevant provisions - Court's analysis and conclusion.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the nephew of the deceased Debabrata Pal, filed a suit for declaration of his entitlement to the retiral benefits of the deceased, alleging that the defendants, including the deceased's alleged wife and children, had no legal claim. The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to restrain the University of Calcutta, the deceased's employer, from disbursing any amount to the defendants until the suit's disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants had produced sufficient documentary evidence, including voter identity cards, ration cards, and an invitation card for the deceased's shradh ceremony, to establish a prima facie case that the defendant no.3 was the legally married wife of the deceased and that the other defendants were their children. The court also noted that a succession certificate had been issued in favor of the defendant no.3 authorizing her to collect the retiral dues of the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants had provided sufficient evidence to establish their claims as the deceased's wife and children. 2. Whether the succession certificate issued in favor of the defendant no.3 was valid and sufficient to entitle her to the deceased's retiral dues.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that entries in public records, such as voter identity cards and ration cards, are admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein. 2. The court also considered Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925, which provides that a succession certificate is conclusive evidence of the right to collect the debts and securities to which it relates, unless it is proved that the certificate was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's order granting the temporary injunction, holding that the defendants had established a prima facie case of their entitlement to the deceased's retiral benefits based on the documentary evidence and the succession certificate. The court directed the University of Calcutta to deposit the entire retiral dues with the trial court, which would allow the defendant no.3 to withdraw 1/4th of the deposit without security, subject to an undertaking to return the money if she ultimately failed in the suit.
1. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order being 21 dated 5th August, 2011 passed by the Learned Xth Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1222 of 2010 at the instance of the defendant no.3 to 6/appellants.
2. Since all the parties are now before us and the relevant papers which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are also available before us, we on the joint request of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, have decided to dispose of the appeal itself on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal.
3. By the impugned order, the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction was allowed. The parties to the suit were directed to maintain status quo regarding release of any amount towards Provident Funds, Gratuity and other service benefits of Debabrata Pal till the disposal of the suit.
4. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this appeal.
5. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.
6. The plaintiff, claiming himself to the nephew (sister’s son) of Debabrata Pal, since deceased filed a suit for declaration that Debabrata Pal having died bachelor intestate, he being the sister’s son of Debabrata Pal as class-II heir is entitled to get all the retiral benefits of Debabrata Pal. Debabrata Pal was an employee of Calcutta University. He died on 7th December, 1993. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant no.3 was not legally married wife of the said Debabrata Pal. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 are not the sons and daughters of Debabrata Pal. He thus, asserted that the defendant nos. 3 to 6 cannot inherit the estate of the deceased. As such, they cannot claim any interest in the retiral benefits of Debabrata Pal.
7. After filing the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the University of Calcutta from disbursing any amount payable on account of the death of the said Debabrata Pal to any of the respondent nos. 3 to 6 till the disposal of the suit.
8. The defendant nos. 3 to 6 appeared in the suit and contested the said injunction proceeding by filing objection. They claimed that the defendant no.3 is the legally married wife of the said Debabrata Pal and the defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the sons and daughters of the said Debabrata Pal. It is also alleged by them that succession certificate has also been issued in favour of the defendant no.3 for realisation of the retiral benefits of the said Debabrata Pal from his employer. They thus, prayed for dismissal of the plaintiff’s application for injunction.
9. In course of hearing of the injunction proceeding, the defendant nos. 3 to 6/appellants herein produced several documents to support their claim that the defendant no.3 is the legally married wife of the said Debabrata Pal. The appellants have also filed a supplementary affidavit before this Court annexing those documents.
10. On perusal of the said supplementary affidavit, we find that the Voter Identity Cards, Ration Cards and Invitation Card of the Shradh Ceremony of the said Debabrata Pal and writing of the plaintiff herein acknowledging the defendant no.3 as the wife of Debabrata Pal have been annexed to the said supplementary affidavit.
11. On perusal of those documents, we find that the Voter Identity Cards were issued in favour of the defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 by the concerned authority sometime in 1995 i.e. after the death of the said Debabrata Pal. However, the Ration Card was issued by the Rationing Officer on 6th April, 1991 which is prior to the death of Debabrata Pal. In all these documents, the name of Debabrata Pal was described as either the husband of the defendant no.3 or the father of the defendant nos. 4 and 5. The writing which is also annexed to the said supplementary affidavit, shows that the plaintiff authorised the
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
