SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(Raj) 632

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Milap Chandra Jain, J.
Pintoo and Another - Appellant
Versus
Bhoop Singh - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 140 of 1991.
Decided On : 9-02-1994

A succession certificate can be granted only in respect of the property of a deceased person which goes to his heirs.

Headnote:

SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - GRATUITY - ACT-SECTION REFERRED : Section 370, 372, 214, Indian Succession Act, 1925 - SUMMARY : The court held that the petitioner-respondent was not entitled to get a succession certificate in respect of the amount of gratuity as he was not a member of the deceased's family as defined in Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and there was no valid nomination made by the deceased officer.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased, Keshav Singh, was a bachelor and left no nomination in respect of his gratuity amount. His brother, Bhoop Singh, applied for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The application was opposed by the sons of late Sunder Singh, the deceased's brother.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner-respondent was not entitled to get a succession certificate in respect of the amount of gratuity as he was not a member of the deceased's family as defined in Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and there was no valid nomination made by the deceased officer.

Issues: Whether the petitioner-respondent was entitled to get a succession certificate in respect of the amount of gratuity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner-respondent was not entitled to get a succession certificate in respect of the amount of gratuity as he was not a member of the deceased's family as defined in Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and there was no valid nomination made by the deceased officer.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the order of the learned District Judge, Dholpur dated February 18, 1991 was set aside. The petitioner-respondent was directed to refund the amount, if withdrawn by him, with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal has been filed under Section 384, Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the order of the learned District Judge, Dholpur dated February 18., 1991 by which he has allowed the application of the respondent Bhoop Singh moved under Section 372 of the Act and ordered for the issue of succession certificate in his favour in respect of the amount of gratuity of late Keshav Singh. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.

2. Keshav Singh was in the service of the State of Rajasthan as a teacher. Till his death, he was a bachelor. He left no nomination in respect of his amount of gratuity. His parents died during his life-time. His brother Bhoop Singh moved an application under Section 372, of the Act for obtaining succession certificate in respect of the gratuity amount of Rs. 18,907/-. In this application, Smt. Asha and Badam Singh were shown as the widow of Sunder Singh (brother of Keshav Singh) and cousin respectively. The application was opposed by Pintoo and Kale, sons of late Sunder Singh through Smt. Asha Devi. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned District Judge allowed the application by his order dated February 18; 1991.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned District Judge seriously erred to grant succession certificate to the petitioner-respondent Bhoop Singh as neither he was a member of the family of Keshav Singh as defined in Rule 260, Rajasthan Service Rules nor a nomination was left in the favour by the deceased. In support of his contention, he relied upon Memo No. F. 7A (46) FD.A/Rules/59 dated January 02, 1961 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. In reply, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent that the petitioner Bhoop Singh was the only preferential heir, he was entitled to get the succession certificate and the learned District Judge has rightly granted the succession certificate to him.

5. Admittedly, application under Section 372 of the Act has been moved in respect of the gratuity amount of Rs. 18,907/-. The provisions of Sections 370, 372 and 214 of the Act make it clear that a succession certificate can be granted only in respect of the property of a deceased person which goes to his heirs. According to Section II of Chapter XXII of the Rajasthan Service Rules, gratuity of a deceased Government servant who had become eligible for it is payable to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred under Rule 260. Rule 260 defines "family" as under:

"260. Family defined.-(1) For the purpose of this rule-

(a) "Family" shall include the following relatives of the officer-

(i) wife, in the case of a male officer;

(ii) husband, in the case of a female officer;

(iii) sons;

(iv) unmarried and widowed daughters;

(v) brothers below the age of 18 years and unmarried or

widowed sisters;

(vi) father, and,

(vii) mother.

Note:-(iii) and (iv) will include step-children."
The statement of the petitioner-respondent was recorded by the learned District Judge on 07.07.88. At that time, he disclosed his age to be 63 years. As such he was not a member of his "family", being over 18 years of age. The Memo No. F. 71 (46) FD. A/Rules/59 dated January 02, 1961 of the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur runs as under :

"A question arose as to whom the amount of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity should be paid where a Government servant, who died while in service left behind no family as defined in Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and had also not made any nomination.

The question was examined and it is hereby clarified that the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity being of the nature of a gift is payable only to the Government servant himself or in the event of his death, to members of his family, in accordance with Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. Where a Government



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top