Back
2006 Supreme(All) 856
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Prafulla C.Pant
NEERAJ KUMAR GOYAL
Versus
KRISHAN LAL ARORA
Decided On : 23 March 2006
Appeal From Order No. 412 of 2004
Lok Pal Singh, Pankaj Miglani,
Entitlement to a succession certificate is not solely based on marital status, but also on the nominee's relationship with the deceased and their entitlement by conduct.
Headnote:
Indian Succession Act - Succession Certificate - Section 299 - Dispute over succession certificate for deceased's gratuity and insurance - Court found that the respondent was the deceased's husband, but erred in issuing succession certificate to him - Court allowed the appeal and directed issuance of succession certificate to the appellant
Fact of the Case:
Dispute arose over the succession certificate for the deceased's gratuity and insurance between the appellant, brother of the deceased, and the respondent, who claimed to be the deceased's husband. The trial court dismissed the appellant's application and allowed the respondent's application for the succession certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was the deceased's husband but erred in issuing the succession certificate to him. It held that the respondent, who was not a nominee of the deceased and was not living with the deceased at the time of her death, was not entitled to the succession certificate.
Issues: Dispute over entitlement to the succession certificate, based on the claim of being the deceased's husband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Hindu Succession Act, and held that the respondent, despite being the deceased's husband, was not entitled to the succession certificate due to the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's judgment, rejected the respondent's application for the succession certificate, and directed the issuance of the succession certificate to the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case, are that appellant Neeraj Kumar Goyal is real brother of his deceased sister Sushma Goyal, who died on 18-11-1990. At the time of her death she was employed with Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , Rishikesh. As per appellants case, she left behind her father Triloki Nath Goyal and two sisters Sashibala and Veerbala, apart from the appellant. Mother of the deceased Sushma Goyal had already died on 17-06-1990. The appellant sought succession certificate in respect of the gratuity, group insur ance etc. amounting to Rs. 67,0827-due to the deceased. Initially, the ap plication of the appellant, which was registered as case No. 222 of 1991, was allowed on 12-02-1993 and succession certificate was issued in his name. But it appears that respondent Krishan Lal filed simultaneously another application before the Civil Judge, Haridwar, for succession certificate, claiming himself to be the husband of the deceased. Said case was registered as Misc. Case No. 28 of 1991, in which the present appellant also filed the objections. Af ter recording evidence and hearing the parties, learned Civil Judge, Haridwar disposed of the application rejecting the application of respondent Krishan Lal on 05-08-1994 on the ground that suc cession certificate in respect of the same amount has already been issued by the Dehradun court. (It is pertinent to mention here that Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , Rishikesh is situ ated within District Dehradun while Sushma Goyal breathed her last at. Haridwar ).
However, learned Civil Judge, Haridwar, while rejecting the ap plication did find that the respondent Krishan Lal was husband of the de ceased. Thereafter, the respondent Krishan Lal preferred an appeal against the order dated 05-08-1994 of learned Civil Judge, Haridwar. And, said ap peal (Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1994) was also dismissed. Meanwhile, respondent Krishan Lal moved an ap plication before the court at Dehradun for cancellation of the succession cer tificate issued in favour of the present appellant. Said Misc. Case was regis tered as Misc. Case No. 28-A of 1993. The court at Dehradun, after hearing the parties cancelled the succession cer tificate vide its judgment and order dated 10-07-1997. Consequently, the Misc. Case No. 222 of 1991 was re vived and in view of Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the same was re-registered as Succession Suit No. 01 of 2001. In
the objections the respondent raised the plea that he was the husband of the deceased Sushma Goyal and as such entitled to the suc cession certificate.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed following issues :
1. Whether, the deceased Sushma Goyal was legally wedded wife of Krishan Lai, if so, its effect ?
2. To what relief, if any, the appli cant is entitled.
4. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court dis missed the application of Neeraj Kumar (present appellant), brother of the de ceased, and allowed the application of the respondent Krishan Lal (alleged husband) for succession certificate in his favour. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed by Neeraj Kumar Goyal, brother of the deceased.
5. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, deceased Sushma Goyal was employed with Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. at Rishikesh. This is also not disputed between the parties that she died on 18-11-1990. It is also admitted fact that Neeraj Kumar is brother of the deceased. The dispute between the parties is confined to the fact, whether, respondent Krishan Lal is husband of the deceased and is he en titled to the succession certificate, and is-the appellant not entitled to the suc cession certificate.
7. Appellant N
