Skip to content


Arunachala Chettiar Vs. Muthu Alias Salakshi Ammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1918)35MLJ666
AppellantArunachala Chettiar
RespondentMuthu Alias Salakshi Ammal and ors.
Cases ReferredRaman Lalji v. Hari Das
Excerpt:
- - this may or may not form a ground for revoking the certificate under section 18, but until revoked the certificate is valid and affords protection and this objection must also fail.1. appellant's first contention is that plaintiff: being only the assignee of the person to whom succession certificate had been granted is not entitled to a decree without obtalning a succession certificate in his own name. this contention is supported by the ruling in allah dad khan v. sant ram i.l.r. (1912) a. 74 but that decision has been doubted in rang lal v. annu lal i.l.r. (1913) a. 21 and has been dissented from by both the judges in raman lalji v. hari das (1916) 14 a.l.j. 677 one of the main grounds for the decision in allah dad khan v. sant ram i.l.r. (1912) a. 74 is that section 16 of the succession certificate act affords protection only when payment is made to the certificate-holder, and not to his assignee., we respectfully regret that we are unable to accept this.....
Judgment:

1. Appellant's first contention is that plaintiff: being only the assignee of the person to whom succession certificate had been granted is not entitled to a decree without obtalning a succession certificate in his own name. This contention is supported by the ruling in Allah Dad Khan v. Sant Ram I.L.R. (1912) A. 74 but that decision has been doubted in Rang Lal v. Annu Lal I.L.R. (1913) A. 21 and has been dissented from by both the Judges in Raman Lalji v. Hari Das (1916) 14 A.L.J. 677 One of the main grounds for the decision in Allah Dad Khan v. Sant Ram I.L.R. (1912) A. 74 is that Section 16 of the Succession Certificate Act affords protection only when payment is made to the certificate-holder, and not to his assignee., We respectfully regret that we are unable to accept this argument, for payment to the assignee is as valid as payment to the assignor in the absence of any restriction imposed by law. Further Section 4(1) of the Act only requires the production of a certificate and not a certificate in the name of the person suing. Agreeing with Raman Lalji v. Hari Das (1916) 14 A.L.J. 677, we overrule this contention.

2. The next contention is that plaintiff's assignor obtained the succession certificate after she had effected the transfer to plaintiff. This may or may not form a ground for revoking the certificate under Section 18, but until revoked the certificate is valid and affords protection and this objection must also fail.

3. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.


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