Mosstt. Biro Devi v. Sardar Singh — 1989 DIGILAW 12 (PAT)

ORDER B. P. Singh, J. The petitioner in this application claims to be the widow of late Nand Kishore Singh. She is aggrieved by the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, dated 29.6.84 in Succession case no. 25/83 whereby the Subordinate Judge, rejected her application u/s 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for revocation of the succession certificate granted by the court in favour of respondent no.1 herein, namely Sardar Singh. The aforesaid respondent, who was the applicant in succession case no. 25/83, is the father of late Nand Kishore Singh. 2. It is not in dispute that late Nand Kishore Singh died on 13.6.83. His death was either on account of accident or may have been a case of suicide. According to the petitioner, on 13.6.83, the father of the deceased, namely, respondent no.1 Sardar Singh himself lodged a sanha with the Officer-in-charge Burkunda Police Station wherein he had stated that his son late Nand Kishore Singh was married. His marriage was an inter-caste marriage. It was also stated in the aforesaid report (Annexure-I) that the deceased Nand Kishore Singh had married outside his caste and for the past few days, he was not on very good terms with his wife. It appeared to the informant that on account of these facts the deceased had committed suicide. What is relevant is the fact that in a report relating to the death of his son, respondent no. 1 Sardar Singh had himself stated that his son was married. According to the petitioner, she has two minor daughters born out of wed-lock with late Nand Kishore Singh. 3. It appears from the record placed before me that respondent no. 1 Sardar Singh the father of the deceased filed an application for the grant of a succession certificate in his favour which was registered as Succession case no. 25/83 in the court of Subordinate Judge at Hazaribagh. The aforesaid appl1cation has been annexed to the revision application as Annexure-2. In the aforesaid application, respondent no. 1 stated that the deceased left behind his only relation, namely his father (the applicant), brothers and sisters who were opposite parties in the aforesaid application. It was also stated that the deceased died unmarried. On such averments respondent no. The aforesaid appl1cation has been annexed to the revision application as Annexure-2. In the aforesaid application, respondent no. 1 stated that the deceased left behind his only relation, namely his father (the applicant), brothers and sisters who were opposite parties in the aforesaid application. It was also stated that the deceased died unmarried. On such averments respondent no. 1 claimed that he was legally entitled to all the debts and securities left by his son late Nand Kishore Singh and that the opposite parties had no objection to the grant of succession certificate in his favour. It was also claimed that the deceased had nominated respondent no.1 to receive gratuity, C.M.P.F. etc. standing in favour of the deceased. This application, Annexure-2, was filed on 26.5.83. 4. It appears that the petitioner also claiming to be the wife of late Nand Kishore Singh filed the application for grant of succession certificate in her favour. The aforesaid case was registered as Succession Certificate case no. 34/83. A copy of the aforesaid application is Annexure-3 to the revision application. In her application the petitioner had mentioned the other relatives of the deceased including her two minor daughters, the father of the deceased and his brothers and sisters. This application was filed by the petitioner on 21.9.83. 5. It, therefore, appears that two applications for grant of succession certificate were filed before the learned Subordinate Judge; one by the father of the deceased and the other by the petitioner claiming to be his wife. However, by order dated 11.10.83, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order in succession certificate case no. 25/83 whereby he was pleased to grant a succession certificate to be the applicant, namely, respondent no. 1 Sardar Singh, the father of the deceased. In that application, there was no question of hearing the petitioner who claimed to be wife of the deceased since that application proceeded en the factual foundation that late Nand Kishore Singh died unmarried. The petitioner herein was not a party in that application. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that she could not know about the application filed by the father of the deceased and she came to know of it only later. She, therefore, filed an application u/s. 383 of the Act for revocation of the succession certificate & ranted in favour of respondent no. 1 namely, Sardar Singh. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that she could not know about the application filed by the father of the deceased and she came to know of it only later. She, therefore, filed an application u/s. 383 of the Act for revocation of the succession certificate & ranted in favour of respondent no. 1 namely, Sardar Singh. Her grievance is that the learned Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him u/s 383 of the Act by not revoking the succession certificate granted in favour of respondent no, 1 Sardar Singh. 7. Section 383 of the Act vests power in the court granting the succession certificate to revoke the same in certain circumstances. In the instant case, the ground urged in favour of the revocation was that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by making false suggestion or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case. According to the petitioner, the fact that the late Nand Kishore Singh died leaving behind his widow, two daughters, was not disclosed. In the application filed by respondent no. 1 Sardar Singh, it was falsely stated in 1hat application that late Nand Kishore Singh died unmarried. It was, therefore, submitted that respondent no J was guilty of concealing from the court something material to the case. In fact, her contention is that if the court had knowledge of the fact that the deceased had left behind a widow and two minor daughters, there was no question of granting succession certificate to respondent no. 1. On the other hand, it has been contended by respondent no. 1 that the petitioner is not the wife of late Nand Kishore Singh and, therefore, she has no right to claim succession certificate. 8. In the application for revocation of the succession certificate already granted in favour of respondent no. 1, evidence was produced before the learned Subordinate Judge and the learned Subordinate Judge by a lengthy reasoned order has come to the conclusion that even if late Nand Kishore Singh purported to marry the petitioner, the said marriage was not a valid marriage in the eye of law. 9. In this application, I need not express any opinion on the merit of the rival claims. 9. In this application, I need not express any opinion on the merit of the rival claims. When two applications are filed claiming succession certificate in relation to the same deceased, it is only fair that both the applications must be heard and disposed of together, particularly, so when the applicant of one of the applications is not even made a party in the other application. In the instant case, the application filed by respondent no. 1 Sardar Singh did not array the petitioner as one of the opposite parties. In my view the grant of the application filed by respondent no.1 rendered infructuous the application filed by the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge granting succession certificate to respondent no. 1 should be set aside on this ground alone and the learned Subordinate Judge should be directed to consider on merit both the applications; one filed by respondent no. 1 and the other filed by the petitioner. 10. It was urged before me that some amount payable to the late Nand Kishore Singh has already been received by respondent no. 1 Sardar Singh on the strength of the succession certificate granted to him. If that be so, the setting aside of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge without in any manner affect the party or parties paying the debts if the same was paid on production of the succession certificate granted by the learned Subordinate Judge. 11. It was then urged on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Subordinate Judge has gone into unnecessary details and has tried the application for revocation as if it was a title suit. It does appear that the reamed Subordinate Judge took great pains to analyse all the material placed before him to hold that though the deceased purported to marry the petitioner, no valid marriage according to Hindu Law took place and, therefore, she was not the legally married wife of the deceased. It does appear that the reamed Subordinate Judge took great pains to analyse all the material placed before him to hold that though the deceased purported to marry the petitioner, no valid marriage according to Hindu Law took place and, therefore, she was not the legally married wife of the deceased. I may only observe that in determining the rights of the rival claimants, the court is not required to enter on the determination of intricate questions of law or fact, but after appreciation of the material on record, the court should issue a certificate to the person who has prima facie the clearest the title to the succession and to leave the others to establish his title by a suit. No doubt in doing so, the court has to hold some enquiry as to the right of the rival claimants to the certificate. Hut it is also web settled that a succession certificate is only conclusive of the representative title of the holder thereof as against the debtor and affords protection to the pal ties paying the debts. The grant of succession certificate merely clothes the holder of the same with an authority to realize the debts of the deceased and to give valid discharge. He is, however, to dispose of the amount so realized in accordance with the rights of the persons who are entitled to it. The grant of succession certificate does net finally adjudicate upon the question as to who is the next heir and as such entitled to the estate of the deceased. It is well settled that any decision "in proceedings for revocation of a succession certificate will net affect a trial of the same question in a regular suit. Having regard to these principles I may only observe that while considering the grant of succession certificate, the courts are not required to go into the intricate questions of law and fact because these issues may be properly decided by a court of competent civil jurisdiction. However, it may become necessary for the court to consider those questions for the purpose of deciding the application before it, and in such a case, the court should avoid going into questions which are not very relevant for the decision of the application, but, if necessary and unavoidable, it may decide even such issues. However, it may become necessary for the court to consider those questions for the purpose of deciding the application before it, and in such a case, the court should avoid going into questions which are not very relevant for the decision of the application, but, if necessary and unavoidable, it may decide even such issues. However, as observed earlier, any finding that may be recorded by the court while granting succession certificate or while revoking the succession certificate does not bar a trial of the same question in a regular suit. 12. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed and the order refusing to revoke the succession certificate already granted to respondent no.1 dated 29.6.1984 is set aside. The order granting succession certificate to respondent no. 1 Sardar Singh is hereby revoked. The learned Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, is directed to consider and dispose of both the applications for grant of succession certificate; one filed by the petitioner and the other filed by respondent no. 1 together and by a common order. If any of the parties have paid to respondent no.1 any debt payable to the estate of the deceased in pursuance of the succession certificate already granted in favour of respondent no. 1, the liability of such debtors who have made such payment in good faith shall not be adversely affected and the discharge given by respondent no.1 shall be considered to be a valid discharge. This, however does not preclude the petitioner from seeking an appropriate relief in court of law as against respondent no. 1 if she claims a share or the whole of the amount so received by respondent no.1 in pursuance of the succession certificate granted in his favour. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.