THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Smt. Jyoti Kalita, W/o Late Subal Borah - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Guneswari Borah, W/o Late Mohan Chandra Bora - Respondent
Intest.Cas. No. 4 of 2024
Decided On : 22-10-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding joint succession certificate and legal heirship. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of legal principles related to succession. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. application of legal standards to succession certificate issuance. (Para 14 , 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. final decision on the appeal and directions. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. R. Sensua, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In this Intest.Cas. No.4/2024, filed under Section 384 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Nagaon, in Misc. (Succession) Case No.22/2019. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2024, the learned Additional District Judge has directed to issue a joint succession certificate in favour of the respondents/petitioners and the appellant/opposite party in respect of the debts and securities left behind by the deceased Subal Borah as described in the Schedule to the petition on payment of due court fees and on execution of an indemnity bond by the respondents/petitioners.
3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal are briefly stated as under:-
“Late Subal Borah, son of the respondent/petitioner No.1 Smt. Guneswari Borah and father of respondent/petitioner Nos.2 and 3 Smt. Lipika Borah and Dipsikha Borah, during his lifetime was working as Nayak in Assam Special Reserve Force under the Government of Assam. He died on 02.07.2018 leaving behind the respondents/petitioners as his legal heirs. The mother of respondent/petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and the wife of Late Subal Borah died on 28.10.2006. At the time of death of the mother of respondent/petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the respondent/petitioner No.3 was a minor and to take care of her, Subal Borah kept the appellant/opposite party in his house and the appellant instead of taking care of the minor, had manufactured some documents and photographs and inserted her name in some documents as second wife of Subal Borah, though there was no relationship of husband and wife between Subal Borah and the appellant. At the time of his death, Subal Borah left certain debts and securities in the office of the Commandant, Assam Special Reserve Force Bn.II, Karagaon, Karbi Anglong, Assam, under the beneficiary scheme. Therefore, the respondents had filed a petition for granting succession certificate in respect of the debts and securities left behind by deceased Subal Borah for a sum of Rs.14,34,319/-. Subal Borah died intestate without making any Will and no letters of administration or probate application is pending in respect of the estate of deceased Subal Borah and there is no impediment in granting succession certificate under the Indian SUCCESSION ACT .
Under the said application, the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Nagaon, vide order dated 10.04.2019, had issued special and general notices to all concerned and pursuant to the notices issued on 10.04.2019, the appellant/opposite party entered appearance and contested the application by filing written objection, wherein it is contended that there is no cause of action and the petition is not maintainable and that Subal Borah married the appellant/opposite party as per Hindu religious rites and rituals and till his death, the appellant lived with him. The appellant denied the allegation of manufacturing false document and that Subal Borah after the death of his wife Bharati Borah, married the appellant on 15.10.2007 and she lived with Subal Borah and the respondents/petitioners and that Lipika Borah, the respondent No.2, got married in 2010 and the appellant claimed that she is entitled to a share over the debts and securities left by the deceased and under such circumstances, she contended to dismiss the application.
Uttar Pradesh Roadways Retired Officials and Officers Association v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Rosy Joseph v. District Transport Officer
Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Smt. Violet Issaac & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Vidhyadhari and others vs. Sukhrana Bai and Others
Sandhya Educational Society v. Union of India
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.