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 Legal representative of claimant should produce Succession certificate for getting compensation under motor accident claim petition?

We cannot approve the said view of the High Court, for, Succession Certificate as envisaged in the Indian Succession Act can be granted only in respect of "debts" or "securities" to which a deceased was entitled. The amount involved in this case was not a debt or security to which the deceased was entitled. This was a compensation sanctioned on amount of the death of the deceased and is, therefore, not an asset belonging to the deceased but an amount which the legal representatives of the deceased can claim on their own account. The civil court will only decide as to who are the legal representatives and in what shares they are entitled to as per the Personal Law applicable to them. The Parties will move appropriate application before the court concerned for expediting the procedure regarding disbursement of the amount. With these observations we set aside the impugned order. {Para 3}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 402-03 of 2000.

Decided On: 17.01.2000

Rukhsana and Ors. Vs. Nazrunnisa and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.T. Thomas and M.B. Shah, JJ.

Author:  K.T. Thomas, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/2586/2000,2000 (9) SCC 240.

Print Page

Whether step mother can get right in the property of her step son as his mother?

 The petitioner is the step mother of deceased Sarang Rameshrao Garajkar who died on 19.09.2013. The respondent No. 2 is his widow and respondent No. 1 is their minor son. The respondents applied for Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter 'the Act') in respect of the debts and securities more particularly described in paragraph No. 5 of their application being MARJI No. 823/2014. 

6. If such is the legal position, it is sufficient for the present enquiry to barely reiterate the admitted facts. The petitioner is the step mother and not the biological mother of deceased Sarang, whereas the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are his son and widow. The debts and securities described in paragraph No. 5 of the respondent No. 1 and 2's application stand in the name of Sarang, albeit it is their case that some of such debts or securities have been recovered by the petitioner as his nominee. Needless to state that since the parties are governed by Hindu Succession Act, succession in respect of the properties left behind by Sarang would be governed by Section 8 of that Act and as can be appreciated from the Schedule the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being son and widow would fall in the Class-I category.

7. So far as the petitioner is concerned, as far as deceased Sarang is concerned being a step mother as distinguished from mother which are two separate entries which can be found in Class-II and Class-I respectively, she would be entitled to inherit to his estate only being a 'father's widow' and not as a 'mother'.

8. Independently, since words "mother" and "father's widow" have been consciously and separately inserted in Class-I and Class-II of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act 1956, one can easily comprehend that these two are separate and distinct entities. A conjoint reading of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act would explicitly reveal that as far as the properties left behind by a male Hindu, as far as devolution of interest in a coparcenary property is concerned it would be governed by Section 6 and a step mother being a widow of the deceased father, she may be able to lay a claim in the capacity of a widow falling in Class-I. However, so far as a devolution of interest in the property of a step-son, by virtue of Section 8, a step mother would only be entitled to lay a claim in her capacity as a 'father's widow' which is an entry in Class II.

Bombay High Court

Sunita Rameshrao Garajkar vs Shravan Sarang Garajkar And ... on 1 October, 2021

Print Page

Whether order passed in application for succession certificate can be challenged before district court or high court?

  In view of this position, the Civil Judge, Senior Division in these two Appeals have exercised the jurisdiction under Sub-section 1 of Section 388 of the said Act of 1925. In view of the proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 388, the Appeals under Section 384 of the said Act of 1925 against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division will therefore lie to the District Judge and not to this Court. By virtue of the proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 388 of the said Act of 1925 in case of all appealable orders passed on Application for succession certificate by the courts referred to Sub-section 1 of Section 388, the Appeal will lie to the District Judge irrespective of the value of the subject matter of the Application for grant of succession certificate. The reason being that the forum of Appeal is created by the proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 388 of the said Act of 1925 and not by the provisions of said Act of 1869.{Para 9}

12. In my considered view, Appeals against the impugned judgments and orders will lie to the District Judge irrespective of value of subject matter of Application for succession certificate.

Bombay High Court

Shri Vitthal Ramchandra Mali vs Smt. Laxmi Ganpati Mali And Anr. on 6 June, 2006

Print Page

Can the court refuse to issue a letter of administration regarding demonetized currency notes laying in the bank locker?

  Merely because the Government has issued a

demonetization policy, it does not mean that the claim as to

the requisite currency notes is extinguished. If we go by the

report of Assistant Superintendent, we may find that apart

from banned currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs. 1000/- notes

of Rs. 50/- and Rs. 100/- denomination were also found in

the locker. Trial Court has wrongly rejected the claim in toto.

Even in respect of banned currency notes, the appellants can

approach the concerned authorities and may do the needful.

It is very well true that as the claim is pending for

adjudication before the trial Court, it was not possible for the

appellants to approach the competent authority under the

Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. This

Court hope that when approached, the competent authority

will consider the claim of the appellants in respect of banned

currency notes. {Para 20}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1602 OF 2019

Sushilkumar  Motilal Sharma Vs Umeshkumar s/o Motilal Sharma,

CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J .

PRONOUNCED ON : 11.06.2021

Print Page

Whether a party can obtain letter of administration even after obtaining probate?

Rejecting Mr. Dalpatrai's contention, I summarise my conclusions thus-

(a) Under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly prescribed within which an application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate must be made;

(b) The assumption that Under Article 137 the right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the deceased, is unwarranted;

(c) Such an application is for the court's permission to perform a legal duty created by a will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed;

(d) The right to apply would accrue when it becomes necessary to apply which may not necessarily be within 3 years from the date of the deceased's death;

(e) Delay beyond 3 years after the deceased's death would arouse suspicion and greater the delay, greater would be the suspicion;

(f) Such delay must be explained, but cannot be equated with the absolute bar of limitation; and

(g) Once execution and attestation are proved, suspicion of delay no longer operates.

This Court did not agree with/approve conclusion (b). However, approved conclusion (c), reproduced hereinabove.

17. Therefore, considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur (supra), it can be said that in a proceeding, or in other words, in an application filed for grant of probate or letters of administration, no right is asserted or claimed by the applicant. The applicant only seeks recognition of the court to perform a duty. Probate or letters of administration issued by a competent court is conclusive proof of the legal character throughout the world. That the proceedings filed for grant of probate or letters of administration is not an action in law but it is an action in rem. As held by this Court in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur (supra), an application for grant of probate or letters of administration is for the court's permission to perform a legal duty created by a will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed.

Therefore, even if the will is probated by any court mentioned in Section 228 of the Act, right to get the letters of administration is a continuous right which can be exercised any time, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 10482 of 2013

Decided On: 29.04.2019

 Sameer Kapoor  Vs. The State 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 SC 3318

Print Page

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

How to ascertain limitation for making application to get letters of administration?

 In the aforesaid decision, this Court also considered
and referred to paragraph 16 of the decision of the Bombay High
Court in the case of Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani (supra) in
paragraph 15, which reads as follows:
“16. Rejecting Mr. Dalpatrai’s contention, I summarise
my conclusions thus –
(a) Under the Limitation Act no period is advisedly
prescribed within which an application for probate,
letters of administration or succession certificate must be
made;
(b) The assumption that under Article 137 the right to
apply necessarily accrues on the date of the death of the
deceased, is unwarranted;
(c) Such an application is for the court’s permission to
perform a legal duty created by a will or for recognition as
a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which
can be exercised any time after the death of the deceased,
as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the
trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to
be executed;

(d) The right to apply would accrue when it becomes
necessary to apply which may not necessarily be within 3
years from the date of the deceased’s death;
(e) Delay beyond 3 years after the deceased’s death
would arouse suspicion and greater the delay, greater
would be the suspicion;
(f) Such delay must be explained, but cannot be
equated with the absolute bar of limitation; and
(g) Once execution and attestation are proved,
suspicion of delay no longer operates.”
This Court did not agree with/approve conclusion (b).
However, approved conclusion (c), reproduced hereinabove.
17. Therefore, considering the law laid down by this Court
in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur (supra), it can be said
that in a proceeding, or in other words, in an application filed for
grant of probate or letters of administration, no right is asserted
or claimed by the applicant. The applicant only seeks recognition
of the court to perform a duty. Probate or letters of
administration issued by a competent court is conclusive proof of
the legal character throughout the world. That the proceedings
filed for grant of probate or letters of administration is not an
action in law but it is an action in rem. As held by this Court in
the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur (supra), an application
for grant of probate or letters of administration is for the

court’s permission to perform a legal duty created by a will
or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a
continuous right which can be exercised any time after the
death of the deceased, as long as the right to do so survives
and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if
created, remains to be executed.
Therefore, even if the will is probated by any court
mentioned in Section 228 of the Act, right to get the letters of
administration is a continuous right which can be exercised any
time, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the
trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be
executed.
18. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decision and the observations made hereinabove, the
submission on behalf of the appellants that Probate Case No.
15/2001 filed by respondent no.2 for letters of administration
under Section 228 of the Act, read with Section 276 of the Act is
barred by law of limitation, cannot be accepted. At this stage, it
is required to be noted that even in the plaint, it is specifically
pleaded that after passing away of the father of the parties in the

year 2000, the appellants started intermeddling with properties
bequeathed to respondent no.2, which were situated in Delhi
and, therefore, left with no option, he was compelled to apply for
letters of administration. Therefore, even as per the pleadings in
the application, the cause of action started from the date on
which the appellants started intermeddling with the properties
bequeathed to respondent no.2, after passing away of the father
of the parties in the year 2000. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, both the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench have rightly refused to reject the application in
exercise of powers under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In the
facts and circumstances of the case and as observed
hereinabove, it cannot be said that the application for letters of
administration was clearly barred by the law of limitation which
was required to be rejected in exercise of powers under Order VII
rule 11(d) of the CPC. We are in complete agreement with the
view taken by the High Court.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10482 OF 2013

Sameer Kapoor  Vs The State(New Delhi )

Dated:APRIL 29, 2019.

Print Page

Whether propounder of will is bound to prove will even if objection to will is not taken by other side?

 In the instant case, the applicant amended her application in order to include pleadings pertaining to execution of the aforesaid Will by her son Baban Wankhade. This Will is crucial as regards the claim made by the applicant because it completely leaves out the widow of deceased Baban Wankhade from any benefits in respect of his estate. It is the case of the applicant that since the relations between deceased Baban Wankhade and his wife (contesting respondent No. 7) were strained, the desire of deceased Baban Wankhade is manifested in the contents of the aforesaid Will. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that since there was no consequential amendment made by contesting respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in their written statement/objection in respect of the pleadings pertaining to the said Will incorporated in the application filed by the applicant, the Courts below could not have "shifted the burden" on the applicant as regards the proof of the said Will.

11. In this context, it is to be examined that when the applicant herself has propounded the said Will, whether she is entitled to claim that if there is no denial in the written statement/objection on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 7 to 10, she is discharged from her burden to prove the execution of the said Will. It is difficult to accept the said contention raised on behalf of the applicant because when she is claiming benefit under the aforesaid Will, it is for her to come to the Court and prove the fact in accordance with law that such a Will was indeed executed by her son Baban. In this context, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondent Nos. 7 to 10 is justified in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Verma (supra), wherein it has been held as follows :

"13. A Will like any other document is to be proved in terms of the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act. The propounder of the Will is called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the disposition and put his signature to the document on his own free will and the document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. This is the mandate of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and the position remains the same even in a case where the opposite party does not specifically deny the execution of the document in the written statement. "

12. It is, thus, clear that the mandate of the Act of 1925 read with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is that the burden is entirely upon the applicant to prove execution and contents of the said Will since she had propounded the same. Therefore, the question of law framed by this Court while admitting this application is answered in favour of contesting respondent Nos. 7 to 10 and against the applicant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Civil Revision Application No. 68 of 2015

Decided On: 04.04.2018

 Bainabai Vs.  Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 91

Print Page

Whether appeal will lay to district judge from order passed by civil judge senior division in application for succession certificate?

 In view of this position, the Civil Judge, Senior Division in these two Appeals have exercised the jurisdiction under Sub-section 1 of Section 388 of the said Act of 1925. In view of the proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 388, the Appeals under Section 384 of the said Act of 1925 against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division will therefore lie to the District Judge and not to this Court. By virtue of the proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 388 of the said Act of 1925 in case of all appealable orders passed on Application for succession certificate by the courts referred to Sub-section 1 of Section 388, the Appeal will lie to the District Judge irrespective of the value of the subject matter of the Application for grant of succession certificate. The reason being that the forum of Appeal is created by the proviso to Sub-section 2 of Section 388 of the said Act of 1925 and not by the provisions of said Act of 1869."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

First Appeal No. 226/2018

Decided On: 12.02.2018

Sheela Vs. Panchfulabai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 392

Print Page

Whether succession certificate proceedings can be stayed till decision of civil suit?

Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner has initiated the proceedings as per the provisions prescribed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1925') for grant of succession certificate with regard to the service dues of late Jagarniya as she is her sole legal heir. During its pendency, a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No. 62-A of 2016 was instituted by the petitioner for declaration of title and injunction with regard to the immovable property left by said Jagarniya.
 During the pendency of aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 10 of the CPC, for staying the said succession proceedings till decision of the said civil suit.
 Upon due consideration of the said application, the trial Court by its order impugned dated 26.9.2016 has rejected the said application on the ground that as per the provision of Section 10 of the CPC, only the suit could be stayed and not the proceeding initiated under the Act, 1925. The trial Court has observed further that since both the proceedings are different with each other, therefore, the application as filed is liable to be rejected. In consequence the said application filed under Section 10 of the CPC is rejected.
 In any case, the provision of Section 10 of the CPC would be attracted only when the decision of a suit operates as a res judicata in a subsequently instituted suit. The nature of both the matters are not only entirely different with each other but the jurisdiction of the Courts are also different. In such circumstances, the principles of res judicata would also not be attracted, so as to stay the proceedings initiated under the Act, 1925.
On the basis of the precedent as well as the principle, it has become evident that the proceedings, in a regular suit and the proceedings which are summary in nature contemplated by Section 372 of the Act, 1925 are entirety different and the latter proceedings would not be covered by Section 10 of the CPC. The object of issuance of a certificate and its effect is entirely different which would not result into deciding the issue finally between the parties. Consequently, the orders impugned as passed by the Courts below deserve to be and are hereby affirmed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

Writ Petition No. 190 of 2017

Decided On: 09.03.2017

 Hirman Bai Vs. Divisional Forest Officer, Koriya Forest Division and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Citation: AIR 2017 Chhatis 117

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 amount can be withdrawn from bank account of deceased on basis of will only?

The   submission   of   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
petitioner is that in view of the express provisions of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 (for short “the Succession Act”) and the law
laid down by this Court, it is not mandatory for the petitioner to
obtain Letters of Administration or Probate on the basis of the

Will as the deceased was not a resident of Mumbai and the Will
does not affect any property in Mumbai.   The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of
this Court which hold that in such cases, Probate or Letters of
Administration is not mandatory in view of the express provisions
of Section 57 of the Succession Act.  He would, therefore, submit
that   the   Banks   cannot   insist   on   production   of   a   Succession
Certificate as the petitioner is making a claim on the basis of the
Registered  Will  of   the     account  holder.    The  learned  counsel
appearing for the respondent no.1 supported the stand taken in
the letter dated 1st July, 2014.
6. We   have   perused   a   copy   of   the   alleged   Will   of   deceased
Shevantibai.   The Will itself discloses that though her husband
pre­deceased her,  she was survived by her son and six married
daughters.  
7. Under Section 370 of the Succession Act, on production of a
Succession Certificate, the Banks will get a valid discharge.   In
the   present   case,   admittedly,   the   petitioner   is   not   a  nominee
appointed by the deceased account holder. The petitioner is not a
natural legal heir who is entitled to succeed to the assets of the
deceased as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

8. Therefore,   the   respondent   no.1   called   upon   the   petitioner   to
produce a Succession Certificate to facilitate the speedy disposal
of his claim.  We find no error in the approach adopted by the
bank when it insisted on the  petitioner producing a Succession
Certificate.     This   will   enable   the   Banks   to   obtain   a   valid
discharge.       We   may,  however,   hold  that   on   production  of  a
Succession Certificate under Section 370 of the Succession Act
issued by the Competent Court to the petitioner, the respondents
Banks will have to release to the petitioner the amounts standing
to   the   credit   of   the   accounts   held   by   deceased   Shevantibai
without insisting upon complying with other formalities such as
production of an indemnity bond, consent of the natural heirs
etc.   The reason is that if the Banks pay the amounts to the
petitioner on production of the Succession Certificate issued by
the Competent Court, the Banks will get a valid discharge.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12350 OF 2015
Amol Rajgonda Patil vs.The Manager,Canara Bank & Anr. 
CORAM : A.S.OKA, & A. K. MENON, JJ.
                   DATE : 20th APRIL, 2017

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

Whether legal heirs of deceased creditor can start execution proceeding without obtaining succession certificate?

Hence, the heirs of the deceased creditor cannot start execution proceedings in respect of a decree obtained by the deceased creditor without obtaining representation to his estate. The petitioning creditors are not, therefore, in a position to execute the decree immediately in view of the provisions of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act. Mr. Daruwala who appears for the petitioning creditors has urged that an order has been obtained under Order 21, Rule 22, of the Civil P. C. Hence the decree was executable on the date when the insolvency notice was issued. He, therefore, submits that the insolvency notice is valid in law and an act of insolvency can be based on the insolvency notice. This argument proceeds on the assumption that if an order has been obtained under Order 21, Rule 22, then the decree is executable. When, however, execution is sought not by the original decree-holder but by his heirs, they are required to comply with the provisions of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act also before they can proceed to execute the decree. The heirs of the judgment-creditor cannot, therefore, be heard to say that they were entitled to execute the decree at the time when the insolvency notice was issued. Without obtaining representation to the estate of the deceased decree-holder, they were not in a position to execute the decree at the date of the insolvency notice. Non-compliance with an insolvency notice constitutes an act of insolvency only in cases where the notice is issued in respect of a debt under a decree which can be executed in praesenti. The present insolvency notice does not satisfy this legal requirement. Hence no act of insolvency can be based on such an insolvency notice.

Citation : AIR 1980 Bom 76

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Petition No. 29 of 1978

Decided On: 17.07.1979

Vijay Jethalal Shah
Vs.
Laja Nandlal Raheja and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.V. Manohar, J.

Print Page

Whether court should grant succession certificate for operating bank locker after death of holder of locker?

Generally, banks are insisting on obtaining a succession certificate by the legal heirs in the case of lockers on the death of the holder of the locker. But succession certificate cannot be granted as the locker held by the deceased cannot be treated as a debt. The bank also is not expected to put the legal heirs in a difficult situation to spend more money in obtaining the succession certificate or some other certificate to safeguard their liability. Therefore, it is always desirable that the bank should adopt a procedure in obtaining a nomination at the time of opening of a locker by any person. In case of death of the person holding the locker, the bank may allow the nominee to operate the locker provided an inventory of the articles kept in the bank's safe custody and also obtain a guarantee from the said nominee to produce the articles in the event of any claim by any other person. If this simple procedure is implemented, it will save the parties from spending huge amounts by approaching the courts as courts have consistently held that no sucession certificate can be granted under section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to operate a locker as the locker cannot be treated as a debt.

Andhra High Court

Venugopal Loya And Ors. vs Vijayalakshmi Bung And Anr. on 16 March, 1990

Equivalent citations: 1991 71 CompCas 393 AP,.1991 (I)vol.15.All India Banking Law 

Bench: G R Rao

Print Page

When it is necessary to obtain succession certificate?

Holding that the Succession Certificate was necessary only if the decree had been obtained on the basis of a pre-existing debt in Narayanaswami Naidu v. Chellammal and Ors. 1970 (2) M.L.J. 633, a Single Judge observed as follows:

...I agree that a plaint reading of Section 214(1)(a) and (b) clearly shows that the intention of the legislature was that a succession certificate was necessary only if a decree had been obtained on the basis of a pre-existing debt. The emphasis throughout is on the word "debt". In my view, in order to attract the provisions of Section 214(1)(a), a decree must be sought for on a pre-existing debt due to the deceased and the order sought to be executed by the legal representatives must be for the payment of a debt due to the deceased. If the decree is not for the payment of money due prior to the institution of the suit but for damages or compensation for breach of contract or for tort, then the decree would not be one for a debt due to the deceased. Where costs have been awarded to the deceased in the suit, the decree cannot be said to be for a debt. Section 214(2) of the Act does not purport to define the word "debt", but merely states that it includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes. The meaning of the word "debt" has therefore to be ascertained by reference to the judicial decisions cited supra. The meaning adopted by the Courts also tallies with the ordinary connotation of the word as accepted in public parlance. The word "debt" is defined in Concise Oxford Dictionary as money, goods or services owing. The emphasis is upon the word "Owing" and this necessarily cannotes that there must be a pre-existing debt....

Madras High Court

Kaliammal And Ors. vs R. Dhanaraj, A. Duraisamy And The ... on 12 December, 2006

Equivalent citations: (2007) 1 MLJ 390

Bench: R Banumathi

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to obtain succession certificate for getting compensation under land acquisition Act?

 In CRP 968/2003 dated 28.03.2003, this court has held that compensation awarded under theLand Acquisition Act, cannot be termed as debt or security to insist the parties to produce succession certificate.

Therefore, the impugned order wherein petitioners have been directed to produce succession certificate for receiving compensation deposited by the Judgment Debtor (Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Yadgir) is liable to be set aside.

Karnataka High Court

Nagappa By His Lrs And Ors vs The Assistant Commissioner on 15 September, 2014

Author: N.Ananda

Print Page