Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2561 (RAJ)

Anandi v. Ramji Lal

2022-10-10

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 09.08.2002 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa by which the application filed by the respondent No.1-Ramji Lal under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ’the Act of 1925’) has been allowed and a Succession Certificate of an immovable agricultural land of the deceased-Ramasya has been issued in favour of the respondent No.1 and one Anandi, who is the widow of the deceased and Soni, Sukli and Bhoti, who are his daughters. 2. The said application was allowed ex-parte. 3. Counsel for the appellant submits that going beyond the jurisdiction contained under Section 372 of the Act of 1925, the application filed by the respondent No.1-Ramji Lal has been allowed. Counsel further submits that under Section 372 of the Act of 1925, the Succession Certificate can be issued in respect of debt or securities of the deceased. Counsel submits that Succession Certificate of any immovable property cannot be issued under this provision. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 9.8.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa be quashed and set aside. 4. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice. 5. Part 10 of the Act stating from Section 372 to 390 deals with Succession Certificate. Sub-section 1 of the Section 370 reads thus:- "Section 370(1) in The Indian Succession Act, 1925:- (1) A succession certificate (hereinafter in this Part referred to as a certificate) shall not be granted under this Part with respect to any debt or security to which a right is required by section 212 or section 213 to be established by letters of administration or probate: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prevent the grant of a certificate to any person claiming to be entitled to the effects of a deceased Indian Christian, or to any part thereof, with respect to any debt or security, by reason that a right thereto can be established by letters of administration under this Act." 6. Bare reading of Section 370 and 372 of the Act, particularly clause (f) of Sub-section 1 of Section 372 of the Act would show that a Succession Certificate can be applied only in respect of debts and securities. 7. Bare reading of Section 370 and 372 of the Act, particularly clause (f) of Sub-section 1 of Section 372 of the Act would show that a Succession Certificate can be applied only in respect of debts and securities. 7. The expression ’debt’ has not been defined under the Act. 8. The said expression has not been defined under the General Clauses Act as well. The ordinary meaning of the word ’debt’ means any pecuniary liability whether payable in present or in future to another in return for money, services, goods or any other obligation. In the case of securities, sub-section 2 of Section 370 of the Act enumerates the various securities envisaged by the section, which includes: "(a) any promissory note, debenture, stock or other security of the Central Government or of a State Government; (b) any bond, debenture, or annuity charged by Act of Parliament (of the United Kingdom) on the revenues of India; (c) any stock or debenture of, or share in, a company or other incorporated institution: (d) any debenture or other security for money issued by, or on behalf of, a local authority: (e) any other security which the (State Government) may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be a security for the purposes of this part." 9. Section 381 of the Act deals with the effect of Certificate and it reads as under: "381. Effect of certificate.-Subject to the provisions of this Part, the certificate of the District Judge shall, with respect to the debts and securities specified therein, be conclusive as against the persons owing such debts or liable on such securities, and shall, notwithstanding any contravention of section 370, or other defect, afford full indemnity to all such persons as regards all payments made, or dealings had, in good faith in respect of such debts or securities to or with the person to whom the certificate was granted." 10. Similarly Section 383 of the Act deals with the provision of provocation of the Certificate. They are as under: "383. Similarly Section 383 of the Act deals with the provision of provocation of the Certificate. They are as under: "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 of 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." 11. Bare perusal of the above provisions clearly indicates that an application for certificate may be made in respect of debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of a proportion thereof. 12. The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has dealt with a similar issue in the case of Nugen Machineries Limited thruogh Director Samir Merchant Vs. Punit Shashikant Chauhan in First Appeal No.251/2013 in para Nos.3, 10, 11 & 12 which are as under: "3. We have already pointed out that out of the three items mentioned in the schedule of the application, one of the items was the share certificates of the appellant before us. The other item was some share certificates of Bank of Baroda and the third item was some immovable property standing in the name of his father. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we are in agreement with the learned counsel appearing for the parties that in a proceeding for grant of succession certificate, there was no scope of including immovable property in the schedule of the application and it appears that the learned trial Judge has allowed the application in terms of the schedule. We, therefore, in exercise of our power under Article 227 of the Constitution, delete the first item, namely, the immovable property which was described in the schedule of the application, which cannot form the subject matter of succession proceeding. 11. We make it clear that we have not otherwise gone into the title of the said property, and deletion of that item will not stand in the way of the appellant for seeking appropriate remedy before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 12. Regarding the share certificates of the appellant are concerned, we are of the view that although the Court below should have ordered to grant succession certificate in favour of the applicant as there is no other claimant either as heir of his father or as heir of his mother, there was also no scope of observation that the applicant was entitled for share from the order of BIFR i.e. reduction in equity shares of the deceased as indicated in the order. It is needless to mention that after being armed with the succession certificate, it is for the respondent to proceed before appropriate authority regarding value of the subject share. Since no dispute has been raised regarding the shares of Bank of Baroda, we, therefore, modify the succession certificate impugned in this Appeal by deleting the schedule of the immovable property, as indicated earlier, and also modifying the grant in respect of share of the appellant by deleting the observations regarding entitlement." 13. Hence, it is clear that no Succession Certificate of any immovable property can be issued under Section 372 of the Act of 1925. Thus, the Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction by passing the impugned order and allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 372 of the Act of 1925. 14. The provisions of the Act are silent with regard to issuing succession certificate of the immovable property of the deceased. 15. Hence, the court below has committed an error by allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1 in declaring the respondent No.1 and the wife and daughters of the deceased Ramasya as the successors of his immovable agricultural land. 16. 15. Hence, the court below has committed an error by allowing the application filed by the respondent No.1 in declaring the respondent No.1 and the wife and daughters of the deceased Ramasya as the successors of his immovable agricultural land. 16. In view of the discussion made here-in-above, the impugned order dated 9.8.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa is quashed and set aside and the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 stands dismissed. 17. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) dismissed. 18. Before parting with the judgment, it is made clear that this Court has not gone into the entitlement of the respondent in the immovable property which can be decided only before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.