Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 98 (MP)

Santosh Sullere v. Saroj Sullere

2012-01-19

R.C.MISHRA

body2012
ORDER 1. The subject matter of challenge in this revision is the order-dated 28.10.2010 passed by First Additional District Judge, Chhatarpur in M.A. No.01/10 whereby the petitioners’ appeal under Section 384 of the Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the order-dated 15.04.2010 passed by Third Civil Judge Class I, Chhatarpur in Succession Case No.13/08, was dismissed and revocation of succession certificate granted to them and the direction for issuance of the certificate in favour of the respondent were affirmed. 2. Ramdas Sullere, who died on 28.12.2003 at Kulpahar Distt. Mahoba (U.P.), was superannuated on 31.07.2003 from the post of Peon in the Tahsil Office at Chhatarpur. The respondent claims to be his legally-wedded wife whereas petitioner no.1, the husband of petitioner no.2, is the son of his nephew namely Harsahay. 3. While asserting that – (i) By way of application-dated 29.08.2002 addressed to the Tahsildar, the deceased had nominated them in place of the respondent to receive provident fund, gratuity, family pension and other post-retirement benefits and (ii) The respondent had lived with the deceased for a few days as a mistress and thereafter, had started residing with another person the petitioners filed an application, under Section 372 of the Act, for succession certificate in respect of the amounts deposited in the name of the deceased with the bank as well as in the Provident Fund Account. However, they did not prefer to implead the respondent as one of the parties to the proceedings. 4. As none had appeared to contest the application, it was allowed vide order-dated 31.01.2005 passed by Second Civil Judge Class-I, Chhatarpur in Succession Case No.44/04 and accordingly, the succession certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners. 5. On 22.02.2005, the respondent moved an application, under Section 383 of the Act, for revocation of the succession certificate on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently without informing her and by suppressing the material facts. In that application, she also prayed for grant of such a certificate in her favour. According to the respondent, her marriage was solemnized with Ramdas as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and therefore, being his heir of the nearest degree, only she was entitled to grant of succession certificate. 6. In that application, she also prayed for grant of such a certificate in her favour. According to the respondent, her marriage was solemnized with Ramdas as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and therefore, being his heir of the nearest degree, only she was entitled to grant of succession certificate. 6. In reply, the petitioners explained that they had not arrayed the respondent in their application for succession certificate as she was not the legally-wedded wife of the deceased. Attention was also invited to the fact that the respondent did not raise any objection before the Succession Court in response to the public notice advertised in local newspaper ‘Sandhya Prakash’ on 28.12.2004. They also pointed out that the respondent was able to receive family pension on the basis of a forged death certificate suggesting that Ramdas had expired at Chhatarpur. 7. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, learned Civil Judge, for the reasons assigned in the order-dated 15.04.2010, not only revoked the succession certificate in question but also directed issuance of succession certificate in favour of the respondent on furnishing the requisite stamp duty. As indicated already, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed by way of the order impugned in the instant revision. 8. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the findings that the respondent is the legally-wedded wife of the deceased and the petitioner no.1 is not one of his successors, though concurrent, suffer from serious error of jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no clear and cogent evidence to establish that the marriage was performed with proper ceremonies and in due form according to law applicable to the parties. 9. It is well-settled that the revisional jurisdiction can not embark upon re-appreciation of evidence unless the finding of fact is, on the face of it, illegal or perverse. However, the factual findings in question cannot be said to be, in any way, uncalled for or not based on relevant evidence. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Section 387 of the Act enables an unsuccessful party to a proceeding for succession certificate to file a regular suit in a competent Civil Court on the same question. For these reasons, re-appreciation of the evidence on record is not at all necessary. 10. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Section 387 of the Act enables an unsuccessful party to a proceeding for succession certificate to file a regular suit in a competent Civil Court on the same question. For these reasons, re-appreciation of the evidence on record is not at all necessary. 10. It is then contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order of revocation is not sustainable as there was no wilful or fraudulent suppression of the facts concerning relationship between the respondent and the deceased. 11. A bare perusal of the order-dated 31.01.2005 (supra) granting succession certificate to the petitioners would reveal that they were well aware of the status of the respondent as the nominee of Ramdas to receive family pension and other benefits in the event of his death. In such a situation, their explanation for her non-joinder in the proceedings was not reasonably acceptable. 12. Provisions of Section 383 of the Act read thus – "383. Revocation of certificate.-A certificate granted under this Part may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely:- (a) That the proceedings to obtain the certificate were defective in substance; (b) That the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case; (c) That the certificate was obtained by means an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; (d) That the certificate has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; (e) that a decree or order made by a competent Court in a suit or other proceeding with respect to effects comprising debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked." 13. As indicated in the order dated 15.04.2010 (ibid), the succession certificate was revoked for the cause contemplated in clause (b) [above]. Further, the order-dated 31.01.2005 granting the certificate reflects that the corresponding application contained no reference to the respondent. In this view of the matter, the revocation of the succession certificate obtained by concealment of material facts was rightly affirmed as well merited. 14. The last contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners relates to the direction for grant of succession certificate in favour of the respondent. In this view of the matter, the revocation of the succession certificate obtained by concealment of material facts was rightly affirmed as well merited. 14. The last contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners relates to the direction for grant of succession certificate in favour of the respondent. Placing reliance on the decision of learned Judicial Commissioner in Deity Laipakhangba Khoubomba, represented by Saikhom Purno Singh v. Taorem Khomdonjao Singh, AIR 1961 MANIPUR 52 , he has argued that the respondent was not even entitled to apply for issuance of succession certificate before getting the certificate issued in favour of the petitioners revoked. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the order passed by the appellate Court, has pointed out that her application, though styled as one under Section 383 of the Act for revocation of the succession certificate, also contained prayer for grant of certificate. According to learned counsel, asking the respondent to file a fresh application under Section 372 of the Act would amount to a hyper-technical approach as the requirements of the section in respect of the estate of the deceased have already been complied with. Inviting attention to the decision of this Court in Madhulika Verma v. Prabhawati Verma 2003(1) M.P.L.J. 67, she has further urged that it is open to the Court to modify a succession certificate even upon an application for revocation thereof. However, facts of the present case are distinguishable as in that case, Madhulika happened to be the wife of Sanjay Verma, who was arrayed as the respondent in the application under Section 372 of the Act. Further, it is trite that the application under S.372 of the Act must conform strictly to the requirements of that section and the corresponding proceeding is not a proceeding in rem. 16. This apart, powers of the appellate Court under Section 384 of the Act are limited and its area of jurisdiction is clearly defined. It can only declare the person to whom the certificate should be granted and direct the inferior Court, on application being made therefor, to grant it accordingly, in supersession of the certificate already granted. (Emphasis supplied) 17. This apart, powers of the appellate Court under Section 384 of the Act are limited and its area of jurisdiction is clearly defined. It can only declare the person to whom the certificate should be granted and direct the inferior Court, on application being made therefor, to grant it accordingly, in supersession of the certificate already granted. (Emphasis supplied) 17. Thus, learned ADJ committed an error of jurisdiction in upholding the direction for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the respondent on the basis of the additional prayer made in the application, under Section 383 of the Act, particularly when the statutorily mandatory requirements were not complied with. The direction, therefore, deserves interference under the revisional jurisdiction. 18. For these reasons, the revision stands allowed in part. The part of the impugned order that relates to revocation of the succession certificate is hereby affirmed. But, the direction for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the respondent is set-aside. Instead, it is directed that upon a fresh application being made by the respondent therefor strictly in accordance with law, the Civil Judge shall issue succession certificate in her favour with regard to the estate of Ramdas as early as possible. Revision partly allowed.