C.R.No.7941 of 2011 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

C.R.No.7941 of 2011 (O&M).

Decided on: May 9, 2012.

Chand Kaur

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

General Public and another

.. Respondents

* * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

* * *

PRESENT

Mr.Vikrant Hooda, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

This is an unfortunate litigation between Chand

Kaur petitioner and Manjit Singh. The petitioner is mother of Mehtab

Singh but while serving in Delhi police died in an encounter during

his service. The petitioner in the capacity as mother has filed a

petition for issuance of succession Certificate under Section 372 of

the Indian Succession Act. As Manju Singh was not impleaded, she

sought intervention and was impleaded as respondent No.2, to

contest the petition for succession Certificate. Respondent No.2

Manju Singh claimed that she was widow of Mehtab Singh having

one daughter born out of the wedlock. The details of the controversy

between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is not relevant, at this

stage, for the adjudication of the present revision petition. It is

sufficient to observe that the petitioner had filed an application for

framing of issues especially an issue whether respondent Manju

...1

C.R.No.7941 of 2011 (O&M)

Singh is widow of Mehtab Singh and in the said capacity was entitled

to contest the claim of the petitioner for succession Certificate or to

claim succession. The said application has been dismissed by the

lower appellate Court observing that the proceedings for the grant of

succession Certificate are summary in nature and that there is no

justification for framing issues.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

framing of issues would make it convenient for the trial Court to

determine the controversy and enable the parties to produce

evidence.

Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on

judgment in case Rajinder Singh Vs.Surjit Kaur and another,

2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 423, in support of his contention that

proceedings for the grant of succession Certificate are summary in

nature and that it is only the civil Court where the rights of the parties

are to be adjudicated warranting framing of issues.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as

well as counsel for the respondents and I am of the opinion that as

per the provisions of Section 373 (2) of the Indian Succession Act,

1925, if a Court comes to a positive finding that person applying

under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, is entitled to the

property claimed, it has necessarily to grant succession Certificate in

his favour. However, if the Court cannot decide the right to the

Certificate without determining intricate questions of law or fact, it

may either refuse to grant the Certificate leaving the parties to get

...2

C.R.No.7941 of 2011 (O&M)

their rights determined in a suit or in its discretion grant a Certificate

to the applicant if he appears to be a person having prima facie “best

title” thereto. In the present case, the controversy between the

petitioner and the respondent is as to who can be held to be holder

of prima facie best title to the property claimed in proceedings for

succession Certificate. So far as the framing of issues in summary

proceedings is concerned, it is not disputed that the provisions of

Order 14 Rule 1 CPC are not strictly applicable. Order 14 Rule 1

CPC enables a civil Court to frame issues on issues of fact and

issues of law. In Makhan Lal Bangal Vs. Manas Bhunia 2001 (2)

SCC 652, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that issues are important

as they determine the scope of a trial by laying down the path for the

trial to proceed, free from diversions and departures. It was observed

by the Court as follows: -

“The evidence shall be confined to issues

and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies

not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall

normally