Skip to content


Radhika Prasad Bapudi Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916All16; (1916)ILR38All438
AppellantRadhika Prasad Bapudi
RespondentSecretary of State for India in Council
Excerpt:
act no. vii of 3889 (succession certificate act) - certificate refused--matters tots proved to entitle applicant to a certificate. - .....1889, in respect of a government promissory note described as a part of what is called the tanjore debt. the promissory note was in favour of one madho sahai. he and his brother beni sahai are said to have formed a joint family. madho sahai died long ago and one of his daughters left two sons, one of whom madhuri das, died in 1906, leaving a son makund lal. makund lal has assigned the note to the present applicant under a deed of assignment and the applicant as such assignee has applied for a succession certificate. the court below refused to grant his application on the ground that it had not been established to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant's assignor had a subsisting title at the date of the assignment. in our opinion this was not a question which the court ought to.....
Judgment:

Pramada Charan Banerji and Piggott, JJ.

1. The appellant filed an application in the court below for a succession certificate under Act No. VII of 1889, in respect of a Government promissory note described as a part of what is called the Tanjore debt. The promissory note was in favour of one Madho Sahai. He and his brother Beni Sahai are said to have formed a joint family. Madho Sahai died long ago and one of his daughters left two sons, one of whom Madhuri Das, died in 1906, leaving a son Makund Lal. Makund Lal has assigned the note to the present applicant under a deed of assignment and the applicant as such assignee has applied for a succession certificate. The court below refused to grant his application on the ground that it had not been established to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant's assignor had a subsisting title at the date of the assignment. In our opinion this was not a question which the court ought to have gone into in the present case. Whether the assignor of the applicant had a valid title or not, or whether the assignment conveyed any title to the applicant, or whether the debt secured by the promissory note was recoverable or not, were not matters which the court had to determine upon an application for a certificate. The only question which the court had to decide was whether the applicant was the representative of the parson to whom the debt was alleged to have been due. In this case the debt is alleged to have been due to Madho Sahai deceased and there is no doubt, according to the finding of the court below, that Makund Lal was the legal representative of Madho Sahai and the applicant is an assignee from him. Therefore the representative title of the applicant was established and in fact the learned Judge granted him a certificate as such assignee in respect of another promissory note. Under these circumstances the applicant was entitled to a certificate in respect of the promissory note No. 307. We allow the appeal and varying the order of the court below, direct that a certificate be issued under the Succession Certificate Act in respect of the promissory note in question No. 307. Having regard to the circumstances we make no order as to costs.


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