Supreme Court: On which ground, the court can order revocation of Succession certificate?

Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 governs

applications for grant of succession certificates, whereas Section

383 provides for revocation of such certificates on specified

grounds. Where an application is defective or material facts have

been suppressed or misstated, the certificate issued pursuant

thereto is liable to be revoked under Section 383 of the Act.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO…………………………OF 2026

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.11006 of 2021)

DEEPESH MAHESWARI AND ANR. Vs RENU MAHESWARI

AND ORS 

Author: SANJAY KAROL, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 306.

Dated: April 1, 2026.

Read full judgment here : Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Order IX Rule 13 CPC Application Not Barred By Dismissal Of Appeal Against Ex-Parte Decree

 The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 1) observed that the filing of an appeal against an ex-parte decree would not bar the filing of an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO…………………………OF 2026

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.11006 of 2021)

DEEPESH MAHESWARI AND ANR. Vs RENU MAHESWARI

AND ORS 

Author: SANJAY KAROL, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 306.

Dated: April 1, 2026.

Read full judgment here : Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What is distinction between jurisdiction of court under Section 96 of CPC vs. Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC?

 The settled principle of law is that the scope of proceedings

under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order IX

Rule XIII CPC are distinct. Order IX Rule XIII CPC confers a

wider jurisdiction, enabling the applicant to demonstrate

sufficient cause for non-appearance and seek setting aside of an

ex parte decree (Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar) (2005) 1 SCC 757-3J.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO…………………………OF 2026

(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.11006 of 2021)

DEEPESH MAHESWARI AND ANR. Vs RENU MAHESWARI

AND ORS 

Author: SANJAY KAROL, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 306.

Dated: April 1, 2026

Print Page

Whether findings given by court at time of grant of succession certificate will act as res judicata while deciding application for revocation of succession certificate?

These Sections make it clear that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary in nature and that no rights are finally decided in such proceedings. Section 387 puts the matter beyond any doubt. It categorically provides that no decision under Part X upon any question of right between the parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or any other proceeding between the same parties. Thus Section 387 permits the filing of a suit or other proceeding even though a succession certificate might have been granted.

16. This question was also considered by this Court in the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai reported in MANU/SC/0393/2000 : 2000 5 JT (SC) 336 : (2000 AIR SCW 2432 : AIR 2000 SC 2301). In this case after having considered the provisions of Sections 370 to 390 of the Indian Succession Act as well as Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been held that any adjudication under Part X does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding. It has been held that Section 387 of the Indian Succession Act takes a decision given under Para X of the Indian Succession Act outside the purview of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held that Section 387 gives a protective umbrella to ward off from the rays of res judicata to the same issue being raised in a subsequent suit or proceeding. We are in full agreement with the view expressed in this case.

17. In view of the specific provisions of law it is not possible to accept Mr. Sohal's submissions. Section 387 specifically permits the 2nd Respondent to file a subsequent suit. Merely because issues were raised and/or evidence was led, does not mean that the finding given thereunder are final and operate as res judicata. Even in summary proceedings issue can be raised and/or evidence can be led. The proceedings remain summary even though the Court may, in its discretion, permit leading of evidence and raising of issues. So in a subsequent suit the crucial issues must be decided afresh untrammelled or uninfluenced by any finding made in the proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Civil Revision No. 86 of 2016

Decided On: 02.09.2016

 Sevati

Vs.

Genda Bai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Citation: AIR 2017(NOC) 424 CHH

Print Page

Whether person who is nominated by deceased is entitled to succession certificate?

The court below has further held that nomination will not make the nominee as the owner of the property. I also agree with this conclusion of the court below that nomination is not a Will in law inasmuch as this is the settled legal position in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Smt. Usha Devi (1984) 1 SCC 424 : AIR 1984 SC 346.

4. The present case is indeed a hard case because the petitioners of the succession certificate case are walking away with the property of the deceased Smt. Kamla Devi although Smt. Kamla Devi had separated from the petitioners of the succession certificate case before 35 years prior to the death of Smt. Kamla Devi, however, in the view of the settled legal position that nomination is not a Will, and in the absence of the any Will of Smt. Kamla Devi in favour of the present appellant who is the real sister of the deceased Smt. Kamla Devi, only those persons who are legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act inherit the properties, accordingly this Court has no option but to dismiss the present appeal.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Valmiki J. Mehta, J.)

Rampali v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 

FAO No. 184/2017

Decided on April 24, 2017

Print Page

When court should revoke succession certificate even though no probate is obtained by other side?

The question for consideration before this Court is the scope of the proceedings of revocation of certificate under Section 383 Indian Succession Act.

11. Section 383 of Indian Succession Act is quoted below :

"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 cases ;

(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."

12. Section 383(b) and (c) of the Indian Succession Act makes it clear that if certificate was obtained by concealment of any fact or on the basis of untrue allegation, certificate could be revoked.

13. In the present case, a proceeding before the Revenue Court was pending between the parties on the basis of Will relied on by opposite parties at the time petitioners applied for succession certificate. In the said proceeding before revenue court, opposite party No. 2 had already filed application for mutation on the basis of Will and contested the claim of the petitioners that they are not the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. The present petitioners were represented by Sri Uma Shankar, Advocate on 2.1.1978. The petitioners without disclosing/ suppressing the fact applied and obtained succession certificate. The appellate court rightly allowed the application and revoked the order granting succession certificate.

14. According to me, the scope under Section 383(b) and (c) of Indian Succession Act is very clear that if any succession certificate was obtained by concealment or on the basis of untrue allegations, the power under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act could be exercised. Trial court acted illegally in rejecting the application of revocation without considering this aspect. The appellate court rightly revoked succession certificate.

15. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that as opposite party has not obtained probate under Section 213 of Indian Succession Act cannot apply for revocation of succession certificate, is untenable in law inasmuch as admittedly, the dispute relating to the mutation between the two parties was going on in the revenue court and the opposite party was one of the claimants on the basis of Will in agricultural land and he was disputing the claim of the petitioners being heirs of the deceased. His application for revocation was rightly entertained without obtaining probate under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act.

Allahabad High Court

Jagat Narain And Ors. vs District Judge And Anr. on 16 August, 2002

Equivalent citations: 2002 (4) AWC 2896

Bench: S Srivastava

Print Page

When proceeding for revocation of succession certificate should not stayed?

To my mind, the petitioner cannot draw any help from these authorities because undisputedly the proceedings under the provisions of Indian Succession Act are summary proceedings before a Testamentary Court and while dealing with the Said proceedings the said Court does not function as a Civil Court as it does while deciding a civil suit. The scope of a civil suit and the proceedings under the Indian Succession Act is quite different and, therefore, the similarity of the question in the proceedings and the suit does not appear to be a valid ground for staying the proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. Finding of the testamentary Court while disposing of the proceedings under the Indian Succession Act on the disputed question about the marriage of the respondent with the deceased Bakshi Ram Bhasin will not bind the civil Court and the civil Court will be entitled to return its own finding based on the merits of the case in the suit for partition.

5. Thus, having considered the matter in its entirety this court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the application of the petitioner and not staying the proceedings under Section 383 Indian Succession Act pending before it. 

Delhi High Court

Sudershan Ram Bhasin vs Shrimati Kamla Bhasin on 27 September, 2001

Bench: R Jain

Print Page

When succession certificate granted in favour of father of deceased is not liable to revoked?

 In view of the submissions put forward by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is gathered that the respondent preferred this application for revocation of Succession Certificate under Clause (b) of Section 383 of the Act referred to above. Clause (b) of Section 383 clearly provides that a Certificate can be revoked, if same is found to be obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion or by concealment from the Court some material facts related to the case. On careful perusal of the records, it appears that on the date of filing the Succession Certificate, the appellant had no knowledge about the marriage of the respondent with his late son. Even there was no whisper on the evidence on record to indicate that the appellant was ever informed or made aware of such marriage. Records also reveals that the alleged marriage certificate which was accepted as Exhibit 'A' was dated 16-1-99 and a hand written document as proof of the marriage solemnized on 22-3-96 which was obtained much after the issuance of the Succession Certificate which was granted on 10-11-98.

Gauhati High Court

Gajen Talukdar And Ors. vs Smt. Dipamoni Das on 24 March, 2005

Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 Gau 147

Bench: A Saikia

Print Page

Whether appeal is maintainable against order refusing to revoke succession certificate?

Apart from this, there is a short ground on which also the appeal can be dismissed. An appeal under S. 384 can be filed only against the order granting or refusing the certificate or an order revoking a certificate. The order which is challenged in this appeal is not of any of these types. In fact it is an order refusing to revoke the certificate. An appeal against such an order is not permissible under S. 384.

Allahabad High Court

Brij Bihari Mishra And Others vs Vijai Shanker Mishra And Others on 7 March, 1991

Equivalent citations: AIR 1991 All 236

Bench: N Mithal, B Dixit

Print Page

When court should not revoke succession certificate?

The Court concluded that a succession certificate cannot be termed as a final adjudication of the question as to who is the next heir and as such entitled to the estate of the deceased. The grant of succession certificate merely bestows the holder of the succession with an authority to realise the debts of the deceased and to give valid discharge. The certificate holder must dispose of the amount in compliance with the rights of the persons who are entitled to it. It stated that the dispute in the present case was not covered under clause (b) of Section 383 of the Succession Act, 1925 which empowers the Court to revoke the certificate on the ground that the certificate was received fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion, however, no such allegation was made in the application. Therefore the order passed by the lower Court holding that the application filed under Section 383 of the Act was not maintainable was justified. Hence, revision dismissed.

Orissa High Court

Sachidananda And Anr. vs Bichitrananda And Ors. on 4 April, 1990

Equivalent citations: AIR 1990 Ori 172

Bench: D Mohapatra

Print Page