Paramanandachari Vs. M. Veerappan - Court Judgment
|Cases Referred||Kuchur Iyer v. Vengu Ammal|
succession act (xxxix of 1925), section 381 - succession certificate act (vii of 1889), section 16--succession certificate, conclusiveness of--certificate in name of wrong person, whether invalid. - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of..........vakil for the respondent refers to section 386 of the succession act of 1925 (section 22 of act vii 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) turn 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 the plaintiff is given a decree with costs throughout.
1. Under the 1st part of Section 16 of the Succession Certificate Act (now Section 381 of the Succession Act of 1925) the certificate (Ex. B) is conclusive against the debtor [vide, Kuchur Iyer v. Vengu Ammal 93 Ind. Cas. 360 : 50 M.L.J. 432 : (1926) M.W.N. 116 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 407 : 23 L.W. 728
2. The learned Vakil for the respondent refers to Section 386 of the Succession Act of 1925 (Section 22 of Act VII 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) turn 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 the plaintiff is given a decree with costs throughout.