Back
Kerala High Court
U.L.BHAT
Abdul Karim - Appellant
Versus
Raheesa Ansari - Respondent
Decided On : 07/31/1985
Succession Certificate - Dispute over estate of deceased - Summary of Acts and Sections: Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 214, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 381, 384, 388, 299 - The court discussed the provisions of the Succession Act, 1925, particularly focusing on the requirements for granting succession certificates, the powers of the District Judge, and the procedure for appeals. The court emphasized the limited scope of the succession court's inquiry and the purpose of the succession certificate, highlighting that the grant of a succession certificate does not determine the title to the debt or property in the debt, and that disputes over title should be settled in appropriate proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the estate of a deceased individual, particularly regarding the distribution of various amounts, including death claim under an insurance policy, gratuity, leave encashment, and bank deposits. The petitioners, who were the father and maternal grandmother of the deceased, sought succession certificates for their respective shares, while the widow of the deceased claimed entitlement to a portion of the amounts based on nomination and the law of succession in U.A.E.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the succession court had appropriately issued succession certificates to the heirs based on the principles of Mohammaden Law as applied in India, without determining the actual title to the amounts. The court also held that the Appellate Court erred in ordering a remand for further inquiry into the ownership of the insurance money, as such determination was beyond the scope of the succession court's jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the entitlement of the heirs to succession certificates for the deceased's estate, the validity of the widow's claim based on nomination and foreign law, and the powers of the Appellate Court to order a remand in succession matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of the succession court's inquiry, highlighting that the grant of a succession certificate does not determine the title to the debt or property in the debt, and that disputes over title should be settled in appropriate proceedings. The court also clarified the powers of the Appellate Court in succession matters, affirming its authority to order remand when necessary.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Appellate Court, restored the orders passed by the succession court, and allowed the revision petitions without costs.
These revision petitions are filed by respondents 1 and 2 in O.P. (Succession) 34/83 who are also petitioners in O.P.(Succession) 58/82 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. Attingal, Common respondent in the two revision petitions was petitioner in O.P.34/83 and respondent in O.P.58/82. Third respondent in O.P. 34/83 is not before Court. In these revision petitions what is challenged is the common judgment of
the Dist. Court, Trivandrum in A. S. 377/1983 and A. S. 378/1983 filed by the respondent herein against orders passed in the O. Ps.
2. Claim relates to the estate of Abdul Karim Ansari who was employed in Dubai, U. A. E. and died there in an accident on 27-2-1982. Revision petitioners are father and maternal grandmother respectively of the deceased. Common respondent is the widow of the deceased. Third respondent in O. P. 34/83 is the only brother of the deceased.
3. Petition in O. P. 34/83 and the counter in O. P. 58/82 give details of the various amounts which are subject-matter of the proceedings. Amounts are:
1. Death claim under group insurance Policy No. C112 taken out by the deceased
Dirhams 54,000.00 Rs. 1,40,625.02
2. Gratuity
Dirhams 5,602.96 Rs. 14,591.04
3. Proportionate leave encashment of 9 days
Dirhams 330.00 Rs. 859.38
4. Deposit in Bank of Oman
Dirhams 2,271.90 Rs. 5,916.40
Total Dirhams 62,204.86 Rs. 1,61,991.83
Less Consular fee
Dirhams 1,585.12 Rs. 4,049.78
Balance
Dirhams 60,619.74 Rs. 1,57,942.05
4. In O. P. 58/82, petitioners contended that second petitioner, maternal grandmother is entitled to 1/6th share in the assets of the deceased, that the widow is entitled to 1/4th share and the father, residuary heir, is entitled to the balance 14/ 24th share. Thus, each of the petitioners claimed succession certificate regarding his or her share in the total amount viz., Rs. 92,132.88 and Rs. 26,323.67 respectively. In the counter filed therein and in the petition in O. P. 34/83 the widow contended that the amount due as death claim under the insurance policy was gifted by the deceased in moieties to the widow and the brother as per nomination and this amount must be divided equally and in the amounts due under the other heads she is entitled to 2/3rd share under the law obtaining in U. A. E. She claimed succession certificate in regard to her share and if that is to be issued for the full amount due she offers to furnish security also.
5. Respondent herein produced certain documents. Ext. A1 is a letter received by the respondent from the Consulate General of India, Dubai. It was in this letter that particulars of the various amounts due were mentioned and she was informed that the amount was being forwarded. Ext. A6 is a copy sent to the respondent of a letter of Consulate General of India, Dubai to the District Collector, Trivandrum informing the latter that Demand Draft for Rs. 1,57,942.05 was being sent to the latter. The letter also informed the District Collector that the widow (respondent) was being advised to arrange for collection of the amount from him against succession certificate. Ext. A3 is purported to be photostat copy of the nomination made by the deceased Abdul Karim Ansari in regard to the insurance policy. The nomination names the widow and the brother to get fifty per cent each as beneficiaries out of the sum in the event of his death while being a member of the policy. Ext. A2 is the letter by which Ext. A3 was sent to the respondent. Ext.A4 is letter of the Consulate General of India to the respondent enclosing Ext. A5 purporting to be printed extract of the law obtaining in U.A.E. regarding distribution of death compensation. According to Ext. A5, if a person dies without leaving children, the widow should get 2/3rd and the father 1/3rd of the death compensation.
6. Learned Subordinate Judge held that there is no authenticated document to prove the gift of the insurance amount to the widow and the brother; that there is no authenticated document to prove nomination in their favour and even i
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
