Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 165
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J
SONJOY TARAK NATH CHATTERJEE – Appellant
Versus
TARAK NATH CHATTERJEE (DECEASED) – Respondent
TESTAMENTARY PETITION (L) NO.13026 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kevic Setalwad, Jehaan Lalkaka, Satyasrikant Vutha
For the Respondents:
The court affirmed jurisdiction to issue a Succession Certificate under the Indian Succession Act based on the deceased's ordinary residence in Mumbai, despite the debt lying overseas.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 371 and 5 - Succession Certificate - Applicability and jurisdiction - Petition for Succession Certificate filed for debts of deceased who died in Mumbai - Court finds jurisdiction to grant certificate despite debts lying outside India - Deceased's ordinary residence being in Mumbai grounds applicability of Indian law for succession to his movable property. (Paras 4, 9, 10)
(B) Jurisdiction - Court determines jurisdiction based on deceased's ordinary residence at the time of death, overruling objections related to the location of debts.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought a Succession Certificate for a debt in GBP lying in the UK, claiming jurisdiction based on the deceased's residency in Mumbai.
Findings of Court:
The deceased's debts can be administrated under Indian law as he was domiciled there; the Court possesses jurisdiction to grant the Succession Certificate.
Issues: Determining jurisdiction for Succession Certificate based on the deceased's ordinary residence despite debts being overseas.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirms that jurisdiction under Section 371 is correct as the deceased resided in Mumbai, granting the certificate necessary for the debts held abroad.
Result: Preliminary objection overruled, Succession Certificate issuance directed.
1 The present petition has been filed for a Succession Certificate in respect of the debts of one Tarak Nath Chatterjee (“the deceased”) who died in Mumbai on 4th September 2012. A copy of the death certificate of the deceased issued by Sub-Registrar (Birth & Death), Health Department, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is annexed to the Petition.
2 The Petition sets out that the deceased ordinarily resided at 1010 Sanghi Residency, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. Schedule-I annexed to the present Petition sets out the debt in respect of which the Succession Certificate is applied for. The Succession Certificate is thus required for the purpose of collection of the said debt as also receiving interest due thereon.
3 A perusal of Schedule-I shows that the debt is an amount of GBP 2,15,228.88 which is equivalent to Rs.2,22,31,774.62 which is lying deposited in Barclays Bank Leicester LE-87 2BB United Kingdom.
4 Mr.Setalwad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the present Testamentary Petition is on stamp number and is not being proceeded with by the department in view of the following preliminary objection raised by the department which reads thus “-
“How this Petition can be proceeded when debt shown in Schedule in outside jurisdiction”
Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is not in dispute and the record reflects that; (i) the deceased died in Mumbai as is evident from the death certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and (ii) that the deceased was ordinarily a resident of Mumbai having permanent address at 1010 Sanghi Residency, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025. Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that the present testamentary petition had been filed under Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act which reads thus :-
371. Court having jurisdiction to grant certificate :-- The District Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of his death, or, if at that time he had no fixed place of residence, the District Judge, within whose jurisdiction any part of the property of the deceased may be found, may grant a certificate under this Part.”
(Emphasis added)
Mr. Setalwad, therefore submitted that the deceased being a resident of Mumbai i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Court, any Petition for Succession Certificate would have to be filed in this Court as clearly provided for in the first part of Section 371 .
5 Additionally, Learned Senior Counsel then invited my attention to Part-II of Section 5 of the Indian Succession Act which deals with “Domicile” and placed reliance upon Section 5 (2) which reads thus :-
“5. Law regulating succession to deceased person’s immovable and movable property, respectively.—
(1) -----
(2) Succession to the moveable property of a person deceased is regulated by the law of the country in which such person had his domicile at the time of his death.
Illustrations (i) A, having his domicile in [India], dies in France, leaving moveable property in France, moveable property in England, and property, both moveable and immoveable, in [India]. The succession to the whole is regulated by the law of [India].
(ii) A, an Englishman, having his domicile in France, dies in [India], and leaves property, both moveable and immoveable, in [India]. The succession to the moveable property is regulated by the rules which govern, in France, the succession to the moveable property of an Englishman dying domiciled in France, and the succession to the immoveable property is regulated by the law of [India].”
(Emphasis added)
Placing reliance as above, Mr. Setalwad pointed out that therefore succession to the moveable property of a deceased would be regulated by the law of the country in which such a person had his domicile at the time of his death.
He submitted that same was also made clear by Illustration (i) given above.
6 Mr. Setalwad therefore submitted that it is only this Hon’ble Court which could grant a Succession Certif
