Back
2015 Supreme(Manipur) 44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, J.
Khundrakpam (Ningol) Arambam Ongbi Suniti Devi and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Khundrakpam (Ningol) Indrani Devi and Ors. - Resopndent
M.A.F. No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 18-03-2015
For the Petitioner:N. Mahendra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Th. Tolpishak, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 15(1)(d) and Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, which govern the devolution of property and provide preference to heirs related by full blood over those related by half blood.
Headnote:
Indian Succession Act - Grant of Succession Certificate - Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 15, Section 16, Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act
Fact of the Case:
The appeal arose from a judgment regarding the grant of a Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The deceased, Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi, left a death-cum-gratuity amount of Rs. 10 lakh, and the dispute arose among the heirs regarding entitlement to the said amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent No. 1, being related to the deceased by full blood, had preference over other relatives who were related to her by half blood, and accordingly granted the Succession Certificate in favor of the respondent No. 1.
Issues: The issues included the status of the adopted daughter, the existence of the death-cum-retirement gratuity, and the entitlement of the present respondent No. 1 to the relief claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act, which dictates the devolution of property upon the heirs of the father in the absence of other specified heirs. Additionally, the court relied on Section 18 of the Act, which gives preference to heirs related by full blood over those related by half blood.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the respondent, Smt. Kh. Indrani Devi, was the person best entitled to receive the succession certificate.
Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ.
1. This appeal arises out of judgement and order dt. 16.7.2011 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Manipur East in Original(Succession) No. 9/2010/1/2011. The respondents in the Original (Succession) Suit are the appellants in this appeal.
2. The present respondent No. 1 had filed the application for grant of Succession Certificate u/s. 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 in relation to a claim of Rs. 10 lakh in form of death-cum-gratuity which late Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi, Ex Professor, Department of Adult Education, Manipur University had left. It is necessary to refer to the family genealogy for convenience and accordingly family genealogy is reproduced below:
From the Genealogy, it appears that late Kh. Amuba Singh had three wives, namely Smt. Nupimacha Devi, Smt. Tonsija Devi and Smt. Tombi Devi. The deceased, Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi is the daughter of late Kh. Amuba Singh from his first wife, Smt. Nupimacha Devi. Late Kh. Gambhini Devi was unmarried and died intestate on 1.9.2008 while working as Professor in the Department of Adult Education, Manipur University. Her death cum-retirement gratuity of Rs. 10 lakh was not disbursed by the Manipur University. According to the present respondent No. 1, she and Shri Kh. Sudhendra (respondent No. 5 before the trial court) are the class-II heirs of Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi, Smt. Kh. (O) Medha Devi and Kumari Kh. Australia Devi and Kumari Kh. Lendi Devi (respondents- 7, 8 and 9 before the trial court) are class-IV heirs and rest of the respondents before the trial court were class-III heirs. Her further case is that late Dr. Gambhini Devi suffered from prolonged Cancer and had borrowed huge amount of money for her treatment. After her death, the present respondent No. 1 performed her 'Sradha' ceremony and managed to pay back the loan incurred by her for her treatment. Accordingly, she filed the claim for grant of Succession Certificate on the ground that she being the class-II heir of late Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi and respondent No. 5 before the trial court having abandoned his claim, she is only entitled to get the Succession Certificate and rest of the respondents are not entitled.
3. The contesting respondents before the trial court, who are appellants in this appeal denied the claim of the present respondent No. 1 and submitted that late Kh. Amuba Singh was the common ancestor and therefore not only the present respondent but also the appellants are entitled to the issue of Succession Certificate in their favour and in order to receive the death cum-gratuity amount lying in the Manipur University of late Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi and all of them are equally entitled to the said amount.
4. The learned Addl. District Judge (FTC) framed three issues such as-
"A -whether Smt. Khundrakpam Ningol Ibemcha Devi (Respondent No. 13 before trial court) is the adopted daughter of the deceased, Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi?
B -Whether Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi died on 1.9.2008 leaving behind a sum of Rs. 10 lakh as her death-cum-retirement gratuity ?
C -Whether present respondent No. 1 is entitled to the relief claimed?"
On assessment of evidence, the learned Addl. District Judge, (FTC) found that the respondent No. 13 before the trial court had failed to prove that she is the adopted daughter of late Kh. Gambhini Devi and that late Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi died on 1.9.2008 while in service and her heirs were entitled to the death-cum-retirement gratuity amount. So far the issue No. 3 is concerned, referring to Section 18 of the Hindu Succession Act, the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC) came to the conclusion that the present respondent No. 1 is related to late Dr. Kh. Gambhini Devi by full blood whereas others except respondent No. 5 before trial court, were related by half blood. Therefore, the present respondent No. 1, who is related to late Kh. Gambhini Devi by full blood, has preference over other relatives who are related to her half blood and accordingly granted Su
