IMPORTANT POINT
Succession Certificate – Courts are required to deal with application under Section 372 of Succession Act in a summary manner without asking for strict proof as contemplated under Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishal T. Patel for the appellant. Perused the record.

2. By way of this appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, the challenge is made against the order dated 14.8.2023 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Dehgam, District Gandhinagar in Civil Misc. Application No.8 of 2022.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

3.1 The present appellant filed Civil Misc. Application No.8 of 2022 for ‘Succession Certificate’ of movable property of late Natvarlal Chhotalal Patel and his wife Champaben Natvarlal Patel, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The appellant claimed to be the nephew of late Natvarlal Chhotalal Patel who passed away on 16.11.2021 and his wife late Champaben Natvarlal Patel passed away on 10.1.2017 at Dehgam. The relationship between the appellant and deceased are that of nephew, uncle - aunty.

4. Submissions of learned advocate for the appellant are as under:

4.1 The appellant filed Civil Misc. Application No.8 of 2022 for ‘Succession Certificate’ of the movable property of late Natvarlal Chhotalal Patel and his wife Champaben Natvarlal Patel, under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

4.2 The original applicants were taking care of the deceased during their life time as Natvarlal Chhotalal Patel and his wife Champaben Natvarlal Patel had no issue out of their wedlock.

4.3 It is further submitted that deceased Natvarlal Chhotalal Patel and his wife Champaben Natvarlal Patel have expired without making any testamentary instrument. The appellants are the heirs falling under Class – I category of the Hindu Succession Act. It is also submitted that the application for ‘Letter of Administration’ under Section 217 read with Section 278 of the Act wherein the notice was affixed on the conspicuous part of the Court and a general notice was also issued in Sandesh Newspaper widely circulated in Gandhinagar District. Pursuant to the said public notice, objections were not raised by any interested person or brothers and sisters of the appellants who are mentioned in paragraph no.4 of the application. The death certificate of Natvarlal Chhotalal Patel and his wife Champaben Natvarlal Patel were produced on record. Power of Attorney of Rakeshkumar Ramanbhai Patel was examined vide Exh.11 and there was no cross examination of the said Power of Attorney holder. In nutshell, the application was uncontested. However, the learned Additional Civil Judge on 14.8.2023 dismissed the application on the ground that except oral evidence, the appellants have not produced evidence in support of the application. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the present appellant has preferred this First Appeal.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon Sub-section 2 of Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which reads as under:-

“373(2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that procedure on application being made by the applicant is summary proceedings as contemplated under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act. Sub-section 3 of Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act contemplates that even if the Court cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining the questions of law or fact which seem to be to intricate and difficult for determination in a summary procedure, the Court may grant the certificate in favour of the appellants.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law in not taking into consideration the provisions of Sub-section 3 of Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act while deciding an application.

8. Learned advocate for the appellant has further relied upon the following decisions in support of his submission:

(i) Maharani Adhirani Kamsundari v. Dis