Skip to content


Ram Raj Vs. Brij Nath and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1913)ILR35All470
AppellantRam Raj
RespondentBrij Nath and ors.
Excerpt:
act no. vii of 1889 (succession certificate act) - certificate of succession--joint certificate not illegal if granted with the consent of the grantees. - .....is illegal. no doubt, it is inconvenient that a certificate should be granted to more than one person, but in the case before us the persons to whom the certificate was granted agreed to its being granted to all of them. one of these persons is the appellant himself. we do not think that the appellant can now contend that the court ought not to have granted the certificate. the precedents cited relate to cases in which there were rival claimants for the certificate, and the lower court granted a joint certificate to those claimants. this, of course, was held to be wrong. as for the order relating to the furnishing of security, we think under the circumstances it was a proper order. we dismiss the appeal but without costs, as the respondent is not represented.
Judgment:

Pramada Charan Banerji and Tudball, JJ.

1. We do not think that there is any merit in this appeal. The facts are these: An application was made by Brij Nath for a succession certificate to realize debts due to Ram Ratan, deceased. Ram Raj, Brij Nath and Ranchhor stated themselves to be the next reversioners to the estate of Ram Ratan, and they agreed that the certificate should be granted to all three of them. This has been done, But as Musammat Tirbeni claimed to be the owner of some of the debts, the learned Judge has ordered the three persons to whom the certificate was granted to furnish security. It is contended that the order granting a certificate to three persons is illegal. No doubt, it is inconvenient that a certificate should be granted to more than one person, but in the case before us the persons to whom the certificate was granted agreed to its being granted to all of them. One of these persons is the appellant himself. We do not think that the appellant can now contend that the court ought not to have granted the certificate. The precedents cited relate to cases in which there were rival claimants for the certificate, and the lower court granted a joint certificate to those claimants. This, of course, was held to be wrong. As for the order relating to the furnishing of security, We think under the circumstances it was a proper order. We dismiss the appeal but without costs, as the respondent is not represented.


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