Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
O. P. GARG
LALSA - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT IVTH UPPER DISTRICT JUDGE, BASTI - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 10503 Of 1999
Decided On : 04/19/1999
INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 371, 381 - SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - DEBTS AND SECURITIES - JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF DEBT - MEANING AND SCOPE - APPLICABILITY TO PROVIDENT FUND, COMPULSORY DEPOSIT SCHEME, LIFE INSURANCE, ARREARS OF PAY, DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT GRATUITY - JURISDICTION OF COURT TO GRANT SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE - DETERMINATION OF ORDINARY RESIDENCE OF DECEASED - CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION - TIMING AND EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS - FACTUAL FINDING OF WIDOWHOOD - JUDICIAL REVIEW IN WRIT JURISDICTION - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the real cousin nephew of the deceased Swaminath, challenged the grant of a succession certificate to Smt. Tirtha, claiming to be the widow of the deceased, for various dues including Provident Fund, Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Life Insurance, Arrears of Pay, and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. The petitioner contended that these items did not fall within the ambit of 'debts and securities' under Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act, that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Basti lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application, and that Smt. Tirtha was not the deceased's widow.
Finding of the Court:
1. The term 'debt' under Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act is broadly interpreted and includes any liability for a cash payment on account of net cash and compensation for equalization of shares under a partition decree. Provident Fund, Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Life Insurance, Arrears of Pay, and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity fall within the definition of 'debt' as they are payable to the legal heir of the deceased employee upon production of a succession certificate, as contemplated by specific statutory provisions. 2. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) Basti had jurisdiction to entertain the application for a succession certificate as the deceased had properties, including immovable properties, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The petitioner's challenge to the jurisdiction was raised for the first time during the course of argument before the appellate court and was not supported by evidence. 3. The finding of fact by the trial court and appellate court that Smt. Tirtha was the widow of the deceased was based on overwhelming evidence, including the deceased's own declaration and admission, oral evidence, and entries in official records. The petitioner's reliance on the absence of Smt. Tirtha's name as the deceased's wife in the family register was insufficient to displace this evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the items claimed by the petitioner, including Provident Fund, Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Life Insurance, Arrears of Pay, and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, fall within the ambit of 'debts and securities' under Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act. 2. Whether the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Basti had jurisdiction to entertain the application for a succession certificate. 3. Whether the finding of fact that Smt. Tirtha was the widow of the deceased was perverse or based on no evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The term 'debt' under Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act is broadly interpreted and includes any liability for a cash payment on account of net cash and compensation for equalization of shares under a partition decree. Provident Fund, Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Life Insurance, Arrears of Pay, and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity fall within the definition of 'debt' as they are payable to the legal heir of the deceased employee upon production of a succession certificate, as contemplated by specific statutory provisions. 2. The jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Basti to entertain the application for a succession certificate was established by the presence of properties, including immovable properties, within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The petitioner's challenge to the jurisdiction was raised belatedly and without supporting evidence. 3. The finding of fact that Smt. Tirtha was the widow of the deceased was based on overwhelming evidence, including the deceased's own declaration and admission, oral evidence, and entries in official records. The petitioner's reliance on the absence of Smt. Tirtha's name as the deceased's wife in the family register was insufficient to displace this evidence.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the grant of a succession certificate to Smt. Tirtha was dismissed as none of the grounds raised by the petitioner could withstand judicial scrutiny.
( 1 ) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31-7-1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti on a petition (Misc. Case No. 34 of 1980) under Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) granting certificate of succession in favour of Smt. Tirtha alias Tirthi alleged to be widow of Swaminath as well as the order dated 4-2-1999 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Basti dismissing the appeal No. 89 of 1995 filed by the present petitioner.
( 2 ) HEARD Sri O. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Gupta, who appeared at the initial stage on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Both the parties agreed that since the petitioner raises pure questions of law, it was not necessary to call for the counter-affidavit and it may be decided finally on the basis of the material available on record. Accordingly I proceed to decide the writ petition on merits at this stage.
( 3 ) ONE Swaminath son of Gokul was an employee in the Railway Department and at the relevant time, was posted at Gonda. He died on 25-12-1978. After his death, respondent No. 3 - Smt. Tirtha filed an application for issue of succession certificate in order to get payment of various dues on account of Provident Fund. Compulsory Deposit, Life Insurance, Arrears of Pay, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity etc. , totalling to Rs. 22,932. 90p. The petitioner admittedly is the grandson of the real brother of the father of Swaminath and thus is real cousin nephew of the deceased. He filed an objection challenging the status of respondent No. 3 on the ground that she was not the widow of the deceased Swaminath as she was married to one Shankar son of Kalpanath and after his death, she contracted a Sagai marriage with Chetu, brother of her earlier husband - Shankar. After the death of Chetu, she is living with her parents. According to the petitioner, real wife of the deceased was Smt. Ramrani who left him during his life time and contracted Sagai marriage with one Asharfi Lal of another village. The petitioner claimed that he being the nearest legal heir of the deceased was entitled to get succession certificate. Both the parties led evidence before the trial Court in support of their respective contentions. After sifting and weighing the evidence on record the trial Court recorded a finding of fact that Smt. Tirtha-respondent No. 3 was the widow of Swaminath, deceased and that she was entitled to get the succession certificate. To challenge this finding, the petitioner preferred an appeal No. 89 of 1995, which was dismissed.
( 4 ) SRI O. P. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner raised following three legal issues, firstly, that the dues on account of Provident Fund, Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Life Insurance, Arrears of Pay, Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity etc. , do not fall within the ambit of the expression debts and securities occurring in Section 381 of the Act and consequently no succession certificate could be issued in respect of the aforesaid items; secondly, that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Basti or for that matter, any other Court at Basti had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for issue of succession certificate in view of the provisions of Section 371 of the Act; and, thirdly, the Courts below have committed a grave error in recording the finding that Smt. Tirtha-respondent No. 3 was widow of deceased and since the said finding is vitiated on account of misreading of evidence, no succession certificate could be granted to her. All the above submissions have been repelled by learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
( 5 ) I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter and find that none of the grounds taken by the petitioner to challenge the order of succession passed in favour of respondent No. 3, as confirmed in appeal, are tenable. It would be proper for the sake of clarity if
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
