The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Section 27 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to determine the entitlement of parties to the debts and securities left by the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present case is proceeded ex-parte against the other respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

3. This is an application under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 against the judgment and order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Bomdila, West Kameng District in Title Suit Case No. 07/2022, in Succession Application No. 96/2021, Whereby the debt and securities of Late Kusumi Miji was divided between the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in the ratio of 50%, 25% & 25% respectively.

4. The facts culminating in this appeal is that Late Kusumi Miji, who is the biological sister of the appellant, went on missing since 16.07.2014. Thereafter, the appellant lodged an FIR on 22.07.2021 & 26.07.2021 before the Officer-In-Charge, Bomdila informing him about her missing and praying for tracing her out. But she could not be traced out by the police and accordingly, he lodged a title suit, for declaration of death of Kusumi Miji before the learned District Judge, Bomdila and considering the fact that she was missing for more than 7(seven) years, vide judgment and order dated 30.09.2021, the learned District Judge, Bomdila passed an order of Civil Death of Kusumi Miji.

5. After the declaration from the Civil Court, the appellant filed a succession application, which is registered as 96/2021, seeking issuance of succession certificate for the debts & securities of Late Kusumi Miji. Accordingly, the notice was issued to the respondents and the respondent No. 1 appeared before the learned District Judge, Bomdila and informed that he has no objection if the succession certificate was issued to the appellant. But the respondent No. 4 objected to its issuance and the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 did not appear before the Court and hence, notices were issued through paper publication. But despite publication of notice through the newspaper on 05.05.2022, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 remain absent and accordingly, vide order dated 30.08.2022, the matter proceeded ex-parte against them.

6. Considering the objection raised by the respondent No. 4, the succession application was registered as title suit No. 07/2022. After commencement of the trial, the respondent No. 4 did not cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses even after several chances given to her and resultantly, the plaintiff evidence was closed and the matter proceeded ex-parte.

7. On the completion of the trial, the learned Court below, vide judgment & order dated 13.04.2023, held that the appellant, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are entitled to debts and securities left by Late Kusumi Miji, however, it is held that the respondent No. 4 who is the biological daughter of the respondent No. 3 cannot claim as he is still alive. Accordingly, it was directed that the debts and securities of Late Kusumi Miji was to be divided between the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in the ratio of 50%, 25% and 25% respectively.

8. On being aggrieved and satisfied with the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Bomdila, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant had taken steps upon all the respondents and only the respondent No. 1 appeared before the learned Court below and filed his no objection, however, the respondent No. 4 raised objection and on the basis of which the succession case is registered as a title suit. However, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 remain absent even after publication of notice through newspaper and thus, it can be deemed that service is completed on the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in substituted manner. But, they never appeared before the learned Court below nor filed any objection to the grant of succession certificate to the appellant. He further submitted that in a civil suit party needs to be vigilant about his rights and those who sleep over their rights cannot be given any right. In the instant case, the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 rem