Skip to content


Smt. Ganga Dei and ors. Vs. Smt. Munia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1245 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1966All107
ActsSuccession Act, 1925 - Sections 373(4) and 375
AppellantSmt. Ganga Dei and ors.
RespondentSmt. Munia
Appellant AdvocateV.K.S. Chaudhary, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.R. Misra, Adv.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
civil - succession - sections 373 (4) and 375 of succession act, 1925 - debts - grant of succession certificate - held, one certificate can be granted to most suited person and security can be taken from the person. - - even though the applicants do not appear to have been acting with a good intention, the courts shall have to dispose of the matter in accordance with the law even if parties are put to inconvenience and may have to indulge in other litigation......persons security can be taken from the person being granted the succession certificate. if the person granted the succession certificate does not pay to other persons the share to which they are entitled, those persons can move the judge under sub-section (2) of section 375 for assignment of the bond or the security to enable them to sue the grantee for recovery of money due to them,6. in other words, even though there are more applicants than one, succession certificate can be granted to only one subject to his furnishing bond with surety or sureties or on giving security as may be ordered by the judge. the person granted the certificate shall have to satisfy the claims of all persons interested in the estate of the deceased and if he does not, legal action can be taken against him......
Judgment:
ORDER

D.S. Mathur, J.

1. This is a revision under Section 115, C. P. C. by Smt. Ganga Dei and others to challenge the order, dated 18-9-62 of the District Judge of Banda passed in an appeal and thereby directing that one succession certificate shall be granted to Smt. Sia Dulari and Girish Chandra, applicants Nos. 6 and 7, in respect of 13/14 share of the cash left by Girdhari Lal, deceased, in the Kanpur Head Post Office and another succession certificate to Smt. Munia, opposite party, in respect of the remaining 1/14 share on payment of the necessary court-fee.

2. The order is challenged on the ground that under the law only one succession certificate could be granted. It, however, appears to me that the applicants moved this revision to somehow deprive Smt. Munia of her rights which, it may be mentioned, have been upheld by the lower Courts though that decision can be challenged in a regular suit. Even though the applicants do not appear to have been acting with a good intention, the Courts shall have to dispose of the matter in accordance with the law even if parties are put to inconvenience and may have to indulge in other litigation.

3. A perusal of the provisions of the Succession Act shall make it clear that with regard to one debt or specified debts one succession certificate, and not more, can be granted. The provisions generally speak of the grant of a succession certificate on an application made by an interested person or applications made by various interested persons. Sub-section (4) of Section 373 of the Act makes this point clear beyond doubt. It lays down that:

'When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants.'

In case persons interested in the estate of the deceased not jointly and no one has an interest hostile to the other, either all shall move an application for the grant of a succession certificate or only one shall make an application for the benefit of all. There shall be no contest and the certificate shall be granted without any controversy. A controversy to whom a certificate be granted shall arise only when there exists a conflict among persons interested in the estate of the deceased and in such a case an application shall be made by one person which would be opposed by others or the rival persons may move applications to be opposed by others. In judging the effect of Sub-section (4) of Section 378 we must, therefore, consider a case where there exists a conflict among persons interested in the estate of the deceased.

4. Where all the sets of the applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge has to determine to whom the certificate may be granted and in selecting out the applicant shall give due regard to the extent of their interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants. If more than one succession certificate could be granted, the provision would have been different laying down that certificates shall be granted to the applicants to the extent of their interest in the estate of the deceased.

5. Section 375 of the Succession Act also indicates that the certificate can be granted to only one person though to safeguard the interest of other persons security can be taken from the person being granted the succession certificate. If the person granted the succession certificate does not pay to other persons the share to which they are entitled, those persons can move the Judge under Sub-section (2) of Section 375 for assignment of the bond or the security to enable them to sue the grantee for recovery of money due to them,

6. In other words, even though there are more applicants than one, succession certificate can be granted to only one subject to his furnishing bond with surety or sureties or on giving security as may be ordered by the Judge. The person granted the certificate shall have to satisfy the claims of all persons interested in the estate of the deceased and if he does not, legal action can be taken against him. In the instant case, succession certificates have been granted to both the sets of rival parties and among the applicants succession certificate has been granted to two of the applicants. In view of the fact that the applicants want the case to be decided strictly in accordance with the law, this Court can pass a legal order not only with regard to the opposite party but also with regard to the applicants inter se. Even though an application is made by more than one person, the certificate has to be granted to one person most suited for the purpose. 'A person' shallmean an Individual person and not a set of persons. In the circumstances, this Court can consider modifying the order under revision by laying down that the succession certificate shall be granted to Girish Chandra alone. To make the order complete it may be mentioned that no certificate can be granted to Smt. Munia as her share is only 1/14.

7. In Ram Rai v. Brijnath, 11 All LJ 717, it was held that the grant of a certificate to more than one person was no doubt inconvenient; but the High Court refused to interfere with the order granting a certificate jointly to three persons, as such a certificate had been granted on their request. In the instant case so this Court would not have interfered with the order granting succession certificate to two of the applicants but when on their objection the order of the lower Court is being modified, it shall be in the fitness of things that the order passed should be strictly in accordance with the law. Similarly, in Muhammad Ali Khan v. Puttan Bibi, ILR 19 All 129, no certificate was granted for a part of the debt.

8. The revision is hereby allowed and theorders of both the lower Courts are set aside.It is further ordered that the succession certificate shall be granted to Girish Chandra, applicant, alone for the total cash left by GirdhariLal, deceased, in the Kanpur Head Post Office.The grant of the certificate shall be subject tohis furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Munsif of Hamirpur for renderingaccount of the cash received by him and forindemnifying the other persons including theother applicants and also Smt. Munia, oppositeparty, to the extent of their share as determinedby the lower appellate Court. The share ofSmt. Munia shall, unless declared otherwise ina subsequent litigation, be deemed to be 1/14.Cost on parties. Stay order is vacated.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //