ORDER :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. The proceeding is conducted through remote Video Conference.

2. Heard Mr. Lalruatpuia Sailo, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. This is an appeal against the Order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-V, Aizawl in Succession Certificate No. 2068/2018, wherein Succession Certificate was granted in favour of the respondent, in respect of the fixed deposits of the late mother of the appellant and the respondent, lying in the State Bank of India, Zarkawt Branch, Aizawl and State Bank of India, Main Branch, Aizawl.

4. The appellant's grievance is that the appellant and the respondent are the children of Smt. B. Sairengpuii, who passed away on 29.11.2017, leaving behind valuable properties, inter alia money amounting to approximately Rs. 4,96,36,0003/- in various fixed deposits maintained at the State Bank of India, Zarkawt Branch, Aizawl and State Bank of India, Main Branch, Aizawl.

5. Though the appellant, respondent and another sister namely, Smt. Lalrohlui Fanai had executed a family settlement with regard to the money left behind by their late mother, which was to be divided between them, the respondent had clandestinely obtained the Succession Certificate in respect of the fixed deposits vide the impugned Order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-V, Aizawl in Succession Certificate No. 2068/2018, without making the appellant as a party to the case.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant is a necessary party, it was imperative that the respondent should have impleaded the appellant before the Trial Court. However, the same not being done, the impugned order had been issued behind the back of the appellant. He accordingly prays that the impugned order should be set aside.

7. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that notice was issued in the local newspaper with respect to the application for issuance of a Succession Certificate in favour of the respondent, inviting objections from any/all person. He submits that if the appellant wanted to make an objection against the application made by the respondent, the appellant could have submitted an objection before the learned Trial Court. As the appellant did not file any objection, there was no infirmity with the learned Trial Court issuing the impugned order. He also submits that the family settlement made by the parties referred to a single Savings bank account and not to fixed deposits, which were in the name of their late mother. He however fairly submits that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Trial Court where the appellant can be impleaded as a party.

8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

9. The Succession Certificate issued to the respondent, on the basis of the impugned order dated 22.11.2018 relates to fixed deposits in the name of the deceased mother of the parties herein. The applicant and the respondent are siblings and it is clear that the applicant is a necessary party. However, the respondent failed to make the applicant a party to the case before the learned Trial Court. Though notice was issued in a newspaper, inviting objections from any/all persons with respect to the application for issuance of a Succession Certificate made by the respondent, it is plausible that the appellant did not notice the same, which is further subject to the question whether the applicant read the said newspaper at all. In any event, it is clear that the applicant is a necessary party and as such, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have impleaded the appellant by name in the application for Succession Certificate before the learned Trial Court. The non-joinder of the appellant in the Succession Case shows that the principles of audi alteram partem have been violated. As the appellant is also the legal representative of the deceased Smt. B. Sairengpuii, the appellant will have to be made a party in the S