Back
2015 Supreme(Ori) 506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
D.DASH, J.
F.A.O. No. 291 OF 2009
(Date of Judgment : 25.03.2015)
From the order dated 06.05.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in Intest No. 10 of 2008.
Rabinarayan Sarangi … Appellant
Versus
Smt. Tarulata Sarangi … Respondent
For Respondent:M/s Miss. N.Pattnaik, B.Satpathy, N.Bhatta, advocates.
Headnote:1. INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - Chapter XIII, Part - X - Succession Certificate - Grant of - Legislature has laid down that an enquiry in such a proceeding is to be summary in nature and the Court without determining the question of law or fact, which seems to be too intricate and difficult for determination in an enquiry of that nature may decide that the Certificate be granted for the present to one who appears to be having prima facie best title thereto.
In such cases, the Court is not under obligation to determine finally as to who has the best right to the estate of the deceased. All that is required to do is to hold a summary enquiry into right to the certificate, without determining definitely and finally as to who has the best right to the estate of the deceased with a view, on the one hand to facilitate the collection of the debts and securities due to the deceased by preventing its unnecessary retention owing to the dispute between the parties inter se as to their right of succession and on the other hand to afford protection to the debts and securities by appointing a representative of the deceased and authorizing him to give valid discharge for debt and to collect the security instead of the same laying without any or proper return much to the undue advantage and gain in the hands of third parties and thereby loss to the estate or misused.
(Para - 7)
2. INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - Succession Certificate - Succession Certificate is not a final adjudication of the question as to who is the next heir and as such entitled to the estate of the deceased - It is an authority to realise and receive the debt and securities of the deceased - The Certificate Holder however, has to dispose of the amount so realised in accordance with the rights of the persons who are entitled to it.
The grant of a certificate to a person in such event does not give him an absolute right to the debt or securities not does it bar regular suit for its adjudication so as to the rights and claims inter se and their adjustment. The legislature appears to have made ample protection by the statutory provision that inappropriate cases, the Court, as a condition precedent to the grant of the certificate, may require the person to whom it proposes to make the grant, to furnish security for indemnifying the person who may be ultimately held entitled to the whole or in part of the debt or security. In these circumstances, the proper course for the Court is to grant the certificate to one or other or under certain safeguards to both jointly, conditional on their furnishing security and leaving the question of succession for subsequent determination in a regular suit. (Para - 7)
3. INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - Sec. 213 (1) - If a particular Will is not covered by Clause (a) or (b) of Sec. 57, the prohibition under the Section does not apply.
Sub-Section (1) prohibits persons from establishing their rights in any Court without obtaining a probate, while sub-Section (2) restricts the application of the above prohibition to classes specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 57. (Para - 9)
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 (hereinafter called as “the Act”) challenging an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhubaneswar in Instate Case No. 10 of 2008, in the matter of an application under Section 372 of the Act filed by the respondent for grant of Succession Certificate for receiving dues of deceased Sobhamani Sadangi lying in deposit in the General Provident Found, towards Gratuity and under General Insurance Scheme on account of her service as Ex-Gang Mulia in the Office of Executive Engineer (R & B) Divison-IV, Bhubaneswar and also for receiving the amount under the TDR deposit in Indian Bank, Kharavela Nagar, Bhubaneswar as indicated in the petition.
At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that the present appellant in the said proceeding in the Court below was made a party, in the very petition filed by the respondent for said grant of succession certificate.
2.Facts necessary for the purpose of this appeal are as under:-
The respondent as the petitioner as the daughter and sole successor of late Kailash Chandra Sadangi and Sobhamani Sadangi, claimed her entitlement for said certificate for the purpose as described above.
It is stated that the appellant as the opposite party in the Court below is the nephew of the deceased Sobhamani, being the son of Maheswar Sadangi borther of late Kailash Chandra Sadangi. In such capacity and with the relationship, he used to visit the house of the petitioner after death of Sobhamani and in course of time got acquainted with the day today affairs. It is stated that some how the opposite party managed to obtain signatures of the petitioners on some blank and other papers under the false pretext of early withdrawal of government dues in favour of the petitioner.
It may be stated here that Kailash Sadangi died on 23.10.1973 while working in the office of P.W.D, C.M. Division under Executive Engineer (R & B) Division-IV, Bhubaneswar. So, on his death, his wife Sobhamani worked as a Gang Mulia getting the employment under rehabilitation scheme and on companionate ground. She died on 26.10.2006 at Bhubaneswar while in service, when she was residing at their residence at Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar, where Kailash was also residing at the time of his death.
After the death of the Sobhamani, the petitioner applied for release of the funds due on account of her service and received some amount towards part payment. However, later on she being asked to furnish the Succession Certificate has made an application as above.
3.The opposite party entering appearance challenged the status of the petitioner as claimed by her to be the daughter of Kailash and Sobhamani and so also factum of her stay with them from the time of her birth since 1966. It is specifically stated that the petitioner is the daughter of Padmanav Sadangi, the younger brother of Kailash and she was born and brought up at Jadipal having such relationship, she prosecuted her studies by staying with Kailash. It is stated that Kailash died issue less. The date of birth of the petitioner as stated in the petition to be in the year 1966 is denied and instead, it is stated that her actual death of birth is 30.10.1965. A stand has also been taken that other legal heirs of Kailash and Sobhamani though are there, have not been made parties. The opposite party claimed his right of entitlement to receive the Succession Certificate for the purpose as indicated in the petition, in view of the last Will of Sobhamani said to have been duly executed on 24.05.2001. This opposite party while denying her status as the nephew of the deceased asserted to be the grandson i.e., nephew’s son of the deceased. He also denied to have taken signature of the petitioner on any blank and other papers as alleged in the petition. It is further stated that a sum of Rs. 22,000/- was disbursed in favour of the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner is not entitled to the Succession Cert
