Skip to content


Musammat Shib Dei Vs. Munshi Ajudhya Pershad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.571
AppellantMusammat Shib Dei
RespondentMunshi Ajudhya Pershad and ors.
Excerpt:
succession certificate act (vii of 1889) - hindu, widow--condition precedent to the grant of certificate--security--apprehension of waste--deposit in bank. - .....judge of moradabad who had before him an application for a succession certificate presented by musammat shib dei, a hindu widow, to the estate of her deceased husband. when the court was considering the application, objection was raised by one ajudhya prasad, to the effect that musammat shib dei was likely to squander the property, and that she had only a life-interest in it. it was in no way an objection under clause (3) or clause (4) of section 7. the learned district judge granted the application for a succession certificate, but added that the money was to remain in deposit in a certain bank in which it then was, and that only interest should be paid to her. this is not an order provided for in act no. vii of 1889. all that the court can do is to require, as a condition precedent.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This appeal arises from an order passed by the learned District Judge of Moradabad who had before him an application for a succession certificate presented by Musammat Shib Dei, a Hindu widow, to the estate of her deceased husband. When the Court was considering the application, objection was raised by one Ajudhya Prasad, to the effect that Musammat Shib Dei was likely to squander the property, and that she had only a life-interest in it. It was in no way an objection under Clause (3) or Clause (4) of Section 7. The learned District Judge granted the application for a succession certificate, but added that the money was to remain in deposit in a certain bank in which it then was, and that only interest should be paid to her. This is not an order provided for in Act No. VII of 1889. All that the Court can do is to require, as a condition precedent to the grant of a certificate, that the person to whom it proposes to make the grant should give a bond to the District Judge with one or more sureties that he will render proper accounts. Even this order should not be passed unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Judge that there is some reasonable apprehension of waste or other danger on the part of the applicant.

2. We allow the appeal, set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that the case be restored to his pending file. He will then consider whether any grounds have been shown for any apprehension that Musammat Shib Dei will waste or squander the property. This order, we need hardly point out, will proceed upon some evidence and not upon surmises thrown out by a person who is not shown to have any direct interest in the property. He will then consider whether it is necessary to require security.


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