Skip to content


Paramanandachary Vs. M. Veerappan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad213a
AppellantParamanandachary
RespondentM. Veerappan
Cases ReferredKuchu Iyer v. Vengu Ammal A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- ramesam, j.1. under the first part of section 16, succession certificate act (now section 381, succession act of 1925), the certificate (ex. b) is conclusive against the debtor [vide, kuchu iyer v. vengu ammal a.i.r. 1926 mad. 407].2. the learned vakil for the respondent refers to section 386, succession act of 1925 (s. 22 of act 7 of 1889), which shows that he need not pay if the certificate is invalid. but i do not see why the certificate is invalid.3. even if another person, (such as the daughter) turns out to be the heir of the deceased, it does not follow that the certificate is invalid. section 374 has no bearing in the case.4. the petition is allowed and plaintiff is given a decree with costs throughout.
Judgment:

Ramesam, J.

1. Under the first part of Section 16, Succession Certificate Act (now Section 381, Succession Act of 1925), the certificate (Ex. B) is conclusive against the debtor [vide, Kuchu Iyer v. Vengu Ammal A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 407].

2. The learned vakil for the respondent refers to Section 386, Succession Act of 1925 (S. 22 of Act 7 of 1889), which shows that he need not pay if the certificate is invalid. But I do not see why the certificate is invalid.

3. Even if another person, (such as the daughter) turns out to be the heir of the deceased, it does not follow that the certificate is invalid. Section 374 has no bearing in the case.

4. The petition is allowed and plaintiff is given a decree with costs throughout.


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