Skip to content


S. Angappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty ;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.733; (1913)24MLJ198
AppellantS. Angappa Chettiar and ors.
RespondentMeenakshi Ammal and anr.
Cases ReferredSivamma v. Subbamma
Excerpt:
succession certificate act (vii of 1889), section 7 - 'questions too intricate and difficult'--inquiry not always necessary--pleadings sufficient. - - that judgment may be perfectly right on the particular facts of the case but if it intended to lay down a hard and fast rule that the inquiry into any question could not be held to be intricate or difficult before it is conducted to some extent, it must, in our opinion, be held to have gone too far......v. subbamma 17 m.k 477 is relied on for the appellants. that judgment may be perfectly right on the particular facts of the case but if it intended to lay down a hard and fast rule that the inquiry into any question could not be held to be intricate or difficult before it is conducted to some extent, it must, in our opinion, be held to have gone too far.2. we dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. It is contended that in all cases a Court dealing with an application for a succession certificate must hold some inquiry as to a claim by an applicant before it can hold that it raises questions too intricate and difficult for decision in a summary trial. In our opinion, the language of Section 7 of the Act does not support this contention. The pleadings in the case may be quite sufficient to show that the inquiry would be too difficult or intricate. The Court has, no doubt, to satisfy itself that the person to whom it grants the certificate has a prima facie right, and for this purpose, some inquiry might be necessary in many cases, but whereas in this case the rival claimant is the widow of the person for whose assets the certificate is asked, the prima facie right is clear. Sivamma v. Subbamma 17 M.K 477 is relied on for the appellants. That judgment may be perfectly right on the particular facts of the case but if it intended to lay down a hard and fast rule that the inquiry into any question could not be held to be intricate or difficult before it is conducted to some extent, it must, in our opinion, be held to have gone too far.

2. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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