Nominees cannot exclude legal heirs from inheritance; intricate issues must be resolved through comprehensive proceedings.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st May, 2003, hereinafter referred to as impugned judgment passed by learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag, whereby and whereunder, two petitions titled as Abdul Rehman Bhat v. Mst. Saja and Others, date of institution 11th October, 2000 and Ghulam Nabi Naikoo v. Mohammad Sidiq Naikoo, date of institution 31st October, 2000, for grant of succession certificate came to be decided.
Factual Backdrop of the Case.
It appears that Mst. Fazi, w/o Ghulam Nabi Naikoo, appellant herein, died on 8-9-2000 at village Bhan, Tehsil Kulgam. Appellant Ghulam Nabi Naikoo presented an application for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the petitioner and alleged adopted daughters, namely, Rukhasana Anjum and Shazia Jan, before the Court of Sub-Judge, Kulgam.

2. Abdul Rehman Bhat, respondent No. 1, also filed an application for issuance of succession certificate before the Court of Pr. District Judge, Anantnag. Ghulam Nabi Naikoo moved an application before the learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag, for arraying him as party in the array of respondents in the petition titled as Abdul Rehman Bhat v. Mst. Saja, which came to be granted.

3. It appears that petition titled Ghulam Nabi Naikoo v. Mohammad Sidiq Naikoo was withdrawn from docket of the Court of Sub-Judge, Kulgam, and came to be transferred to the Court of Principal District Judge, Anantnag. Abdul Rashid Bhat, Mst. Saja and Mst. Saida filed application for impleading them as parties in the application titled as Ghulam Nabi Naikoo v. Mohammad Sidiq Naikoo, which came to be granted vide order dated 7th September, 2001. Both the applications were consolidated vide order dated 9th July, 2001.

4. Parties led evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag vide impugned judgment held that intricate questions of law are involved in the lis, which cannot be determined and adjudicated upon in summary proceedings but prima facie held that Ghulam Nabi Naikoo is entitled to receive 50%, brothers 25% and sisters rest 25% out of the debts mentioned in the impugned judgment and accordingly granted succession certificate.

5. The grievance of the appellant is that brother and sisters are not entitled to any portion of debt but appellant and two adopted daughters (as alleged), namely, Rukhsana Anjum and Shazia Jan are entitled to and receive the entire amount of debts mentioned in the impugned judgment.

6. Learned counsel for appellant argued that there is ample evidence on the file in order to hold prima facie that Rukhsana Anjum and Shazia Jan are adopted daughters of the deceased Mst. Fazi and appellant. Thus, Ghulam Nabi Naikoo and adopted daughters are entitled to receive entire amount. The sisters and brothers of deceased do not have any right and are not entitled to receive the debt. Further argued that deceased had nominated her husband (appellant) as a nominee and is the only person who is entitled to receive the amount of gratuity and life insurance.

7. The following intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the lis:
Whether a custom of adopting two daughters is prevalent and recognized by Custom or by the judicial pronouncements?
Whether the custom of adopting two daughters is prevalent in the family of Ghulam Nabi Naikoo and Mst. Fazi (deceased)?
Whether a nominee can exclude other legal heirs from receiving their due share?

8. It is useful to reproduce sub-clause (2) (3) and (4) of S.7 of Succession Certificate Act, 1977 , hereinafter