The Act permits the grant of. two separate certificates each relating to a part of the same debt, but it is not permissible to grant two or three certificates for the same debt or portion of a debt. A joint certificate of two or three rival claimants should not be normally granted because it is not only fraught with obvious inconvenience but is opposed to the whole spirit and policy of the Act, which was specially directed to providing greater security for persons paying to the representatives of the deceased persons debts due to their estates, and to facilitating the collection of the debts by removing all doubts as to the legal title to demand and recover the same. Another main inconvenience will be the danger of rival claimants giving a discharge and accepting a smaller sum. But it is not illegal to grant a joint certificate to two or more rival claimants if the particular circumstances of the case warrant the same. A fortiori it is not illegal where the claimants are not rival claimants and they consent to its being granted jointly to them all:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided On: 18.06.1957
Appellants: Pappammal alias V. Sivakami Anni
Vs.
Vs.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ramaswami , J.
1. This is a civil revision petition sought to be preferred against an order made by the learned District Judge, East Tanjore, at Negapattr nam in A. S- No. 52 of 1956. The facts are: The private funds of one Vaithilinga Mudaliar who died intestate as long ago as 6th April 1943 amounting to Rs. 15551-3-0 stand invested by the said Vaithilinga Mudaliar in the State Bank of Negapattinam and the Indian Bank of Tiruvarur. This Vaithilinga Mudaliar, on his death was survived by his second wife Pappammal alias Sivakami Anni and his daughter by the deceased first wife M. Sivakami Anni. There were litigations concerning the estate and these assets of Vaithilinga Mudaliar in O. S. NOS. 37 of 1944 and 47 of 1945 in the District Court. Nagapattinam, App. No. 312 of 1946 on the file of the High Court, Madras. O. S. No. 123 of 1946 on the file of the District Court Nagapattinam and O. P. No. 67 of 1948 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, and, the judgments therein have been filed at exhibits in this case It is enough for our purpose to point out that by reason of the intervention of a common relative Sir P. T. Rajan, the widow and the daughter of the deceased Vaithilinga Mudaliar by his first wife entered into a compromise in Ex. B. 1 dated 26th May 1944 in which the material portions are that the properties of the deceased Vaithilinga Mudaliar were divided into two equal halves between the widow and the step daughter, and paragraph 11 therein runs as follows :
It in these circumstances that the widow Sivakami Anni has applied for a succession certificate and this was resisted by the daughter as well as by two other parceners of the deceased Vaithilinga Mudaliar
2. The contest of the parceners was that these funds constituted trust funds and not private funds of Vaithilinga Mudaliar The daughter propounded the agreement by resisting the succession certificate to the entire amount and restricting it to one-half. The widow resisted this claim on the ground that the agreement itself was brought about by undue influence by Sri P. T. Rajan and that it is not binding on her. Both the Courts below found that the funds in questions were the private funds of the deceased Vaithilinga Mudaliar, and, in fact, after the decision on this point went against the parceners they did not prefer an appeal. In regard to the claim of the daughter this was not upheld by the Munsif and on appeal the learned District judge upheld her claim and came to the conclusion that the Succession certificate granted to the widow would hold good to the extent of her moiety only and that the appellant who is the step daughter will be granted successful certificate empowering her to collect the other moiety. With a view to safeguard the rights of the widow in case she was found exclusively entitled to the entire amount in any future suit, the daughter was directed to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the lower Court as required under S. 375 of the Indian Succession Act. It is against this decision that the present civil revision petition is sought to be preferred by the widow.
3. The short point for determination is whether there are grounds for admitting this petition. On a review of the entire matter, I have come to the conclusion that there are no such grounds as the order of the learned District Judge is found by me to be irreproachable.
4. The case-law on the law of succession certificates has become well-settled and a handy and accurate exposition of it is to be found in Sri M. Ramamurthi's Low of Succession Certificates in India. 1954.
5. The enquiry contemplated by S. 373 of the Indian Succession Act which contains the provision relating to the grant of succession certificates is only a summary enquiry The nature of the enquiry must depend upon the circumstances of each case: Chunnilal v. Golabchand 8 I.C. 730, Gulabchand v. Moti 25 Bom. 523 Jigibegam v. Syed Ali MANU/WB/0151/1901: 5 C.W.N. 494, Bai Kashi v. Prabhu 28 Bom. 119 at 122 .
6. The purpose of this Act is not to enable litigant parties an opportunity of litigating contested questions of title to property. There must be an enquiry into the right of the certificate, though in a summary way. The right of the certificate may not be something as the right to the estate of the deceased person. But where the decision of a question is necessary to adjudicate on the question of title to a certificate, the Court makes some enquiry, however brief it might be: Hurrikrishna v. Balabhadra 23 Cal. 431 . Sivamma v. Ibbuamma 17 Mad. 477 , Angappa Chettiar v. Meenakshi 24 M.L.J. 198 , Saraswati v. Subba Iyer 1914 M.W.N. 24, Easanta v Parvati 31 Cal. 133, Balmukund v. Kundan 27 All. 887 .
7. If a Court finds that the applicant has made out a prima facie title to the certificate, it grants his application. But inasmuch as the object of the Act is to obtain the appointment of some person to give a legal discharge to debtors of the estate for the debts due A. I. R. 1956 Hyd. 59 =I. L. R. 1956 Hyd. 142. in deciding whether the applicant has or has not made out a prima facie title to the certificate it was not intended that nice questions of law as to the rights of the parties to the estate of the deceased should be decided by an application to it; but the person having prima facie the best right to the certificate should obtain it; Sivamma v. Subbamma 17 Mad. 477 , Gunindra v. Jugmala 30 Cal. 581, Rajamma v Ramakrishnayya 29 Mad. 121, Brojendra v. Nidadri MANU/WB/0331/1929: A.I.R. 1929 Cal. 661 (F.B.), Charjo v Dinanath MANU/LA/0424/1936 : A.I.R. 1937 Lah. 196.
8. In enacting Sub-S. (3) of S- 373 the intention of the legislature was not to save the Court the trouble of making any enquiry at all, because even for deciding prima facie title to certificates, questions of law or fact do arise which have got to be looked into before a judicial decision is arrived at. It is only when intricate questions of law or fact arise as a result of a summary enquiry and not as a result of the a priori theory that every enquiry into a special ground of claim urged to the certificate necessarily involves an inquiry too intricate for determination in a summary proceeding, that the Court can refuse to adjudicate and refer the parties to a regular suit. Sivamma v. Subbamma 17 Mad. 477 , Asgar Raza v. Abdul Hussain 15 Cal. 574, Dharmayya v. Sayana 21 Bom. 53 , Saraswati v. Subba Iyer 1914 M.W.N. 84 Ramakrishna v. Nagammal 21 M.L.J. 824, Venkatakrishna v. Narasubai(1954) 2 M.L.J. (Andhra) 14 =67 L.W. 904, See also Lakshmi v. Sethamma A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 709 .
9. Thus, to sum up, the title to be investigated under this Sub-Cl- (3) of S. 373 is not the title to the estate of the deceased person, but the title to the certificate. But where there are rival claimants each claiming the effects of the deceased person, such a title cannot be determined unless the question of title to the estate itself is to some extent at least gone into. This question of title must be gone into before it can be held who are entitled to the certificate and in what proportion in order to collect the debts due to the deceased.
10. Sub-S. 4 of S. 373 provides for the grant of certificate to one or more of several rival applicants though they may be ranged in opposite sides, regard being had to the extent of their interest and their fitness in other respects. This indicates that the grant is to be limited to some one or more of the contending parties who make out their title to the estate.
11. The Act permits the grant of. two separate certificates each relating to a part of the same debt, but it is not permissible to grant two or three certificates for the same debt or portion of a debt. A joint certificate of two or three rival claimants should not be normally granted because it is not only fraught with obvious inconvenience but is opposed to the whole spirit and policy of the Act, which was specially directed to providing greater security for persons paying to the representatives of the deceased persons debts due to their estates, and to facilitating the collection of the debts by removing all doubts as to the legal title to demand and recover the same. Another main inconvenience will be the danger of rival claimants giving a discharge and accepting a smaller sum. But it is not illegal to grant a joint certificate to two or more rival claimants if the particular circumstances of the case warrant the same. A fortiori it is not illegal where the claimants are not rival claimants and they consent to its being granted jointly to them all: Fateh Md. Khan v. Malkani 1950 Lab. 185 ; Madanmohan v. Ramdial 5 All. 195;Jannanbai v. Hastubai 11 Bom. 179 ; Lonachand v. Uttamchand 15 Bom. 684 ; Daw v. Daw 1937 Rang. 336; Narayanaswami v. Euppuswami 19 Mad. 497 ; Sukumar v. Parbati 1941 Cal. 663; Ramraj v. Brijnath 35 All. 472.
12. Bearing these principles in mind, if we examine the facts of this case, by reason of the agreement which has been entered into and which has been acted upon for over a period of 12 years, the widow and the daughter of the deceased Vaithilinga Mudaliar are prima facie entitled to collect one half of the debts due to the deceased for which the certificate is applied for The intricate and nice question is whether that agreement entered into in 1944 and not repudiated till now was brought about by undue influence by Sir P. T. Rajan But such family arrangements are prima facie valid and binding on the parties unless they are got set aside in a regularly instituted suit and which must be preferred by the person repudiating the transaction. The learned District judge has also taken the precaution of safeguarding the interest of the widow by requiring the daughter to furnish security so that restitution can be made to the widow in the event of her succeeding in a regularly instituted suit. This revision petition is dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment