Whether bank and firm holding debts and securities are necessary party in application for grant of succession certificate?

 After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that granting of succession certificate is a summary proceeding, the person holding debts and securities is not required to be impleaded. This is an established fact that SBI and the Company are mere custodians of the property of the petitioner's parents, and therefore, a law declaration of succession shall not be connected to them at all. At most after a lawful declaration of succession, the Bank and Company will have a legal obligation to hand over the assets to the valid successor. This proposition is also fortified by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Sushila Devi v. State & Ors. in CM(M) No. 985/2017, decided on 12.09.2017.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4796 of 2019

Decided On: 16.04.2019

 Aruna Derashri  Vs. Learned District Judge, Bhilwara (Raj.)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 Raj 137

Print Page

What is meaning of near relatives as used in S 372 of Indian succession Act?

 I am of the considered opinion that the expression "near relatives" as used in Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, must refer to the persons who would be entitled to succeed the person who had.died intestate on the principle of nearer excluding the remoter. The "family" may comprise of the husband and wife and their minor children either being sons or unmarried daughters for the purpose of the law. The "family" may have a restricted meaning as a small unit. It cannot be lost sight of that in modern times the trend indicates "fission" and not "union". The bigger family concept of joint Hindu family is by and by withering away giving rise to small units of family.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Munni Devi And Ors. vs Anguri Devi on 9 May, 1998

Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 MP 31, 1998 (2) MPLJ 648

Bench: S Srivastava

Print Page

Whether court can grant succession certificate to legal heirs of person who is missing for seven years?

 According to the provision contained in Section 108 of the Evidence Act, if before any Court a question arises as to whether a person is dead or alive, the Court can legitimately draw the inference mentioned in that section if it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would have naturally heard of him if he had been alive. In the case before us, the applicant has given evidence showing that nobody has heard about the person concerned after 1993 and the application was filed beyond seven years from the date when the missing person was last seen by the persons who would in the normal circumstances hear about him. If somebody disputes such fact and gives evidence that he has seen him within the period of seven years, in such a case, the Court dealing with the application is required to assess evidence of both the parties and arrive at a conclusion. If the assertion of an objector that the person concerned is alive or that his whereabouts was known within seven years is believed, the Court will dismiss such application; on the other hand, if on consideration of the materials on record the Court is of the view that claim of the applicant is correct and that, the person concerned was really not heard for the last seven years from the date of presentation of the application, the Court can grant relief to the applicant provided other requirements of the statute are satisfied. In a given case, for the purpose of ascertaining who the natural heirs of the deceased are, the date of death may be a vital factor. In such a case, the Court will insist upon notice of the application upon all those persons who might become natural heirs of the deceased if the death occurred at any particular time or times during the period of the said seven years and after hearing those persons, the Court will come to the conclusion whether deceased was really dead. We are quite conscious of the decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above where Supreme Court in clear terms held that presumption mentioned in Section 108 is only the presumption of death and on the basis of that presumption, a Court cannot grant relief to a litigant if such person is required to prove exact date of death. Those cases, however, did not arise out of the proceedings under the Act we are concerned. Nevertheless, those decisions of the Apex Court virtually approve the proposition of law that a Court is entitled to come to a conclusion as to the time of death of a person or approximate time thereof on the basis of evidence placed before it even without relying upon the presumption under Section 108 of the Evidence Act and it is needless to mention that law does not require that such evidence must necessarily be documentary evidence.

Calcutta High Court

Sudarshan Shaw vs Subhas Shaw on 6 July, 2005

Equivalent citations: 2005 (3) CHN 456

Bench: B Bhattacharya, J Banerjee

Print Page