A.K. Hari Gopal and another vs Balaji Singh

S.V. Maruthi, J

This appeal is filed against the judgment in OP No.88 of 1996 passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad, dated 28-8-1998.

OP No.88 of 1996 was filed for grant of Succession Certificate u/s 372 of the Indian Succession Act (for short ''the Act'') by the respondent herein claiming to be the brother of Kishan Singh who died on 21-2-1995 at Hyderabad on the ground that he died unmarried and that the respondent and his sons are the only legal heirs of the deceased Kishan Singh. The deceased Kishan Singh advanced a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to Sri A.K. Hari Gopal and his wife Smt. Nalini Hari Gopal and for recovering the said amount, the respondent as the legal heir of Kishan Singh requires Succession Certificate. The said A.K. Hari Gopal and his wife Smt. Nalini Hari Gopal, the appellants herein objected to grant of Succession Certificate on the ground that there are other legal heirs of late Kishan Singh. The learned Judge granted the Succession Certificate. Therefore, the said Hari Gopal and his wife Smt. Nalini Hari Gopal who borrowed the money from late Kishan Singh, viz., the debtor, filed the present appeal.

On a perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that the procedure contemplated u/s 373 of the Act has not been followed by the learned Judge. u/s 373, it is provided that the District Judge on being satisfied that there is a ground for entertaining the application, cause the notice of the application published in the manner prescribed. No Rules were brought to our notice prescribing the manner in which the notice is to be published.

The respondent has produced before us a paper named as ''Pledge'' in which the notice of the application was published. However, we are of the view that the said paper viz., ''Pledge'' is not circulated in the public and we understand that it is available only in the Bar Room of the City Civil Courts. Since the said paper is not circulated in the public, we are of the view that the publication does not serve the purpose for which it is meant. The object of publication in a news paper is to make the public or the person concerned to know that a proceeding is instituted in the Court. The publication of notice is not an empty formality. It has a special significance, namely, making the public or person concerned to know about the proceedings in the Court. By publishing in a paper which is not circulated in the public, the Court cannot content itself that it has complied with the mandatory requirement u/s 373. There is a duty cast on the Court to get it published in a paper with wide circulation.

We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and remand the matter to the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad with a direction to follow the procedure contemplated u/s 373 of the Act by publishing the notice in a paper with wide circulation and dispose of the same on or before 31st January, 2000.

The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.