Skip to content


Rajam Chetty Alias Subbaya Chetty Vs. Edalapalli Authiammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.303
AppellantRajam Chetty Alias Subbaya Chetty
RespondentEdalapalli Authiammal
Excerpt:
succession certificate act (vii of 1889), section 7(3) and section 9(1) - grant of certificate--duty of applicant to give sureties. - - the district judge declined, under sub-section (3) of section 7 of the succession certificate act, 1889, to go into the question of the validity of the partition, and he granted the certificate to the petitioner as the person having prima facie the best title thereto......members of the family, and the counter-petitioner's case was that the partition was invalid. the district judge declined, under sub-section (3) of section 7 of the succession certificate act, 1889, to go into the question of the validity of the partition, and he granted the certificate to the petitioner as the person having prima facie the best title thereto. section 9, clause (1), says that if a certificate is issued under section 7, sub-section (3), then the district court shall require a security bond with one or more sureties to be given as a condition precedent to the granting of the certificate. this leaves no discretion in the district court, and we modify the order of the district judge and direct him to take a bond with one or more sureties to his satisfaction from the.....
Judgment:

1. We think the District Judge was not right in issuing the certificate unconditionally to the petitioner. He ought to have required security to be given by her as a condition precedent to the granting of -the certificate. The petitioner is a Hindu widow and she applied for a certificate. She was opposed by the counter-petitioner, who is a reversioner of the deceased. The case for the petitioner was that there was a partition between the deceased and the other members of the family, and the counter-petitioner's case was that the partition was invalid. The District Judge declined, under Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Succession Certificate Act, 1889, to go into the question of the validity of the partition, and he granted the certificate to the petitioner as the person having prima facie the best title thereto. Section 9, Clause (1), says that if a certificate is issued under Section 7, Sub-section (3), then the District Court shall require a security bond with one or more sureties to be given as a condition precedent to the granting of the certificate. This leaves no discretion in the District Court, and we modify the order of the District Judge and direct him to take a bond with one or more sureties to his satisfaction from the respondent in this appeal. Each party will bear his or her own costs in this Court.


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