Back
KERALA HIGH COURT
K.T. Sankaran. J.
Saseendran —Petitioner
versus
Leela —Respondent
C.R.P. No. 2534 of 1999
Decided on 24.5.2011
(ii) Succession Act, 1925—Sections 212, 213 and 373—Existence of Will—Necessity to get succession certificate—Held—If one claims a right under the Will, it could be said that it is not necessary to get succession certificate in order to claim the debt or security. (Para 13 to 16)
(iii Succession Act, 1925—Sections 212, 213 and 373—Bar to get succession certificate—Held—The provision of Part x of the Act of 1925 does not bar the party who claims under a Will to get a succession certificate. (Paras 13 to 16)
(iv) Succession Act, 1925—Section 372(3)—Grant of succession certificate—For a portion of debt—Held—There is no bar in issuing a succession certificate in respect of a portion of debt—If a certificate is issued in respect of a portion of debt, no other certificate can be issued in respect of that portion of debt. (Para 27)
Result: Revision petition allowed.
The legal document discusses the scope and limitations regarding the issuance of a succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It clarifies that the provisions of Part X of the Act do not bar a party claiming under a Will from obtaining a succession certificate (!) (!) . The court emphasizes that the purpose of a succession certificate is to enable the holder to collect debts or securities belonging to the deceased, and it only requires a prima facie right, not a final determination of title (!) (!) .
The document also states that the existence of a Will does not preclude the issuance of a succession certificate, and claiming under a Will does not automatically disqualify a person from obtaining one (!) (!) . It further clarifies that a succession certificate can be issued in respect of a portion of a debt, and multiple certificates may be issued for different portions, but not for the same portion (!) (!) .
Regarding debts such as gratuity, the court recognizes that gratuity is a statutory right and can be disposed of through a testamentary disposition, including a Will, provided the Will is proved and valid (!) (!) . It is also noted that gratuity does not necessarily form part of the estate that goes to heirs, especially if the right to receive it is not part of the estate but is paid to specific persons, which may not be necessarily heirs (!) (!) .
The document highlights that the courts' summary proceedings for issuing succession certificates are not barred by complicated questions of law or fact, and the court can still grant a certificate based on a prima facie case, without final adjudication on disputed issues (!) (!) (!) . It also states that the issuance of a certificate does not constitute res judicata for subsequent disputes or proceedings (!) .
In the specific case discussed, the courts below failed to determine whether the deceased had borrowed the amount claimed or whether the Will was genuine. The appellate court remands the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration, emphasizing that these factual questions must be addressed before a succession certificate can be properly granted (!) .
In summary, the key points are that the provisions of the Succession Act allow for the issuance of succession certificates even when claims are made under a Will, and that such certificates are issued based on prima facie evidence, not final adjudication. The courts have the discretion to issue certificates in respect of parts of debts or estate, and the process is summary in nature, not precluding the examination of relevant evidence to establish the claimant's right (!) (!) (!) (!) .
K.T. Sankaran. J.—The questions involved in this Revision are the following:
a) Whether the Court could dismiss the Original petition for the issue of succession certificate on the ground that complicated questions of fact are involved?
b) Whether the Court could refuse to entertain the Original petition for the issue of succession certificate on the ground that the petitioner is claiming under a Will?
c) Whether gratuity payable to the deceased is a debt in respect of which a succession certificate can be issued?
d) Whether the courts below were justified in dismissing the succession O.P. on the ground that the petitioner claims to issue the succession certificate in respect of only part of the estate of the deceased.
2. Chandramathi, the next friend of the first respondent and sister of respondents 3 and 8 died a spinster. The petitioner alleged that Chandramathi borrowed a sum of Rs. 45,000/- from him for the construction of a house. Chandramathi was a staff nurse working in the Government Hospital, Nadapuram. She was residing in a rented house with her close friend, the first respondent. Chandramathi died in harness. The petitioner alleged that Chandramathi executed a Will bequeathing her properties. The Will is an unregistered Will. The Will was written in a diary kept by Chadramathi. It was attested by two witnesses. In the Will, there is a stipulation that on her death, the petitioner would be entitled to get Rs. 45,000/- from her gratuity amount. The petitioner filed the succession O.P. for the issue of a succession certificate for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- out of the gratuity amount.
3. The first respondent stated in her counter statement that Chandramathi was living with her since 1985. Both of them were working in Government Hospital, Nadapuram from 1972 onwards. For the purpose of construction of a house, Chandramathi borrowed a sum of Rs. 45,000/- from the petitioner. The amount was not repaid. After the death of Chandramathi, the first respondent found out the diary containing the Will and it was intimated to the petitioner.
4. Respondents 2 to 8 contended respondents 3 and 8, being sisters of Chandramathi, are entitled to get the entire amount of gratuity. The Will was disputed by them. It was alleged that the Original petition was filed by the petitioner in collusion with the first respondent. there was no necessity for Chandramathi to borrow any amount from the petitioner. Since complicated questions are involved and the genuineness of the Will is to be decided, the petitioner has to institute a civil suit before the competent Civil Court. A succession certificate can be issued only in the case of intestate succession.
5. Before the trail court, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and the two attesting witnesses to the Will were examined as PWs.2 and 3. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the petitioner. The first respondent was examined as RW1 and the diaries of Chandramathi and her ration cards were marked as Exts.B1 to B5. No evidence was adduced by respondents 2 to 8.
6. The Trial Court Dismissed the Succession O.P. on the following grounds: (1) Gratuity amount is not a debt and as such succession certificate cannot be granted in respect of the same. (2) Complicated question regarding genuineness of the Will are involved in the case and thorne questions cannot be decided in a summary proceeding. (3) The petitioner claims only a portion of the amount out of the gratuity amount and therefore, a succession certificate cannot be granted in respect of the same.
7. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned District Judge disagreed with the findings on points 1 and 2 mentioned above. However, the Appellate Court confirmed the finding on point No.3 mentioned above and dismissed the appeal.
8. Both the courts below did not consider the genuineness or other wise of the Will. The courts below also did not arrive at any finding as to whether Chandramathi had borrowed a sum of Rs. 45,000/- from the petitioner.
9. The proc
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
