Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6499
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. NATARAJAN, J
MRS SUJATHA ANIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
NIL – Respondent
MFA 1578 of 2023
The court affirmed that the production of legal heir and relationship certificates established the appellants' claim as legal heirs under the Indian Succession Act.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 384 and Section 372 - Appeal against dismissal of application for succession certificate - The trial court dismissed the application due to lack of evidence proving the relationship of the appellants to the deceased - The appellants produced legal heir and relationship certificates on appeal, establishing their claim as legal heirs - The court found no reason to deny the appellants' status as legal heirs. (Paras 4, 8, 9, 10)
(B) Legal Heirs - Definition and recognition of legal heirs under the Act - The court recognized the appellants as class-II heirs of the deceased, affirming their right to inherit. (Paras 6, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the sisters of the deceased Sobhana Setumadavan, who died without legal heirs. The trial court dismissed their application for a succession certificate due to insufficient evidence of their relationship. The appellants later produced necessary documents to establish their claim.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and directed the issuance of a succession certificate in favor of the appellants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants could prove their relationship to the deceased to qualify as legal heirs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the production of legal heir and relationship certificates on appeal sufficiently established the appellants' claim as legal heirs, thus justifying the issuance of the succession certificate.
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 384 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for setting aside the order dated 11.08.2020 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in P and SC No.536/2019 for dismissing the application filed by the 1st appellant herein.
2. Previously, the 1st appellant was the petitioner and other respondents were the respondents before the trial court. Subsequent to passing of the order dated 18.07.2024, respondent Nos.1 to 5 were transposed as appellant Nos.2 to 6 and the legal hairs of one Bhanu Prakash, who had not appeared before the trial court, have been made as appellant Nos.7 to 10 in this appeal.
3. Notice issued to respondents is dispensed with since the respondents are transposed as appellants.
4. The case of the petitioner before the trial court is that the sister of the petitioner No.1 was Mrs. Sobhana Setumadavan and the said Sobhana Setumadavan expired on 15.10.2018 at 1.00 a.m. due to cardiac arrest. Mr. Setumadavan, who was the husband of Sobhana Setumadavan, had predeceased her and died on 21.01.2017. Setumadavan and Shobana Setumadavan had no issues. The mother of Setumadavan also died long back. There is no sibling to Setumadhavan and also no class I or class II heirs. The deceased Setumadavan was working in BEML, Bengaluru and retired long back. After the marriage, the deceased Shobana and applicant Nos.1 to 6, who were the sisters of Shobana, lived together, and after the death of her husband, Sobhana was lived with her brother in Kerala. The deceased Shobana was having movable assets i.e. fixed deposits and saving bank accounts in post office as well as in other banks. She was also having FD in Post Office under Senior Citizen Scheme. After the death of Shobana, the petitioner No.1 requested the authorities to release the amount. The authorities insisted the petitioner to bring succession certificate. Hence, the petitioner approached the District Judge by filing an petition under Section 372 of the Act and the petition came to be dismissed. Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that Sobhana, said to be the sister of the appellant Nos.1 to 6, had married to Setumadavan, who predeceased Sobhana. Sobhana also died on 15.10.2018 leaving behind no legal heirs. The appellants are class-II heirs of Sobhana. Setumadavan, the husband of Sobhana, was said to be having one mother and she also died long back and there is no sibling to the said Setumadavan. Therefore, the appellant was the legal representative of Sobhana and public notice was issued through paper publication and no one objected the same, except appellant Nos.2 to 6 who appeared and not filed any objection. Accordingly, the first appellant was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. P.W.2 is also examined. Respondent No.4 has been examined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 are marked. After hearing the arguments, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court.
7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for appellants has produced two documents especially, the legal heir certificate issued by Tahsildar, Chittoor pallakad and the relationship certificate issued by the said Tahsildar, and contended that these two documents were not produced before the trial Court and if the said documents were produced before the trial Court, it could have passed the order in favour of the appellants.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the appellants were not able to produce the legal representative certificate to show that they were the siblings of Sobhana. Also no relationship certificate was produced to say that Sobhana is one of the sisters of appellant No.1. The petitioner before the trial Court also not produced any document to show that appellant Nos.7 to 10 herein,
