Mt. Kabo and another vs Damri Lal and others

Mohammad Noor, J.—This appeal is against an order of the District Judge of Monghyr, granting succession certificate under Part 10, Succession Act, to the respondents Damri Lal and another. The proceeding in this case was somewhat of an irregular character. The money for the realization of which various parsons claimed succession certificates was lying in the post office being the sale proceeds of two Government promissory notes each of the face value of Rs. 500 which stood in the name of one Moti Lal. Moti Lal died, leaving a widow, Mt. Shyam Sunder Kuer. Later on she also died. The Government promissory notes were obviously acquired in the name of Moti Lal when he was of very tender age, and the learned Judge has found that it was perhaps his maternal grandfather Darshan Lal who acquired them for his benefit.

One Kausalya Kuar applied for a succession certificate to realize the sale proceeds of these Government promissory notes, alleging that they were in fact the property of her daughter Shyam Sundar Kuar, widow of Moti Lal, and she being her heir was entitled to realize them. Thereupon the present appellants Mts Kabo and Besni filed objections to the grant of certificate to Mt. Kausalya not on the ground that they were the heirs of Shyam Sunder Kuar, widow of Moti Lal, but on the ground that they were the heirs of Darshan Lal the maternal grandfather of Moti Lal to whom according to them the Government promissory notes really belonged. The second objection was by the present respondents who claimed to be the heirs of Moti Lal in whose name the notes stood. It is clear from what I have stated above that three different persons claimed to be entitled to the money, each claiming that it belonged to different deceased persons. It was not a ease of different persona claiming the right to collect money due to one deceased person. Kausalya claimed to succeed to the estate of Shyam Sunder Kuar, Kabo and Besni to be entitled to succeed to the estate of Darshan Lal and Dainri Lal and others to the estate of Moti Lal, the subject-matter of the claim being the same.

The learned District Judge proceeded to inquire into the various claims in the proceeding started by Kausalya. This seems to be somewhat irregular, inasmuch as the inquiry contemplated in Part 10, Succession Act, is an, inquiry between rival claimants to the estate of a deceased person. First of all an application giving some particulars about the deceased is necessary. Then the jurisdiction of granting the certificate is vested in the Judge within whose jurisdiction the deceased ordinarily resided. I do not think that it was ever contemplated that there can be an inquiry in one proceeding as to which of the three deceased persons was entitled to particular money. It is true that some sort of inquiry about the existence of debt is essential in order to enable the Court to grant a certificate, but in this particular case in fact there was no application for certificate to collect debt due to the estate of Moti Lal, though a prayer to the effect was made in the objection filed by the respondents to the application of Kausalya. I do not know the practice prevailing in the District Monghyr, but I think that Part 10, Succession Act contemplates an application and the grant of a certificate on an application. But it has so happened that on an application for grant of a certificate for money said to be due to Shyam Sunder Kuar a certificate has been granted for collecting the money due to Moti Lal. However this is purely a formal defect, and I do not think the order of grant of a certificate to the respondents can be interfered with on that ground. The learned District Judge will examine the practice of the district in this respect and if there has been any irregularity he will see that it is not repeated.

Coming to the merits of the case it is clear that the order of the learned District Judge is perfectly correct. The Government promissory notes stood in the name of Moti Lal and certificate has been rightly granted to his heirs. No elaborate inquiry was needed. The claim of Kausalya, Kabo and Besni ought to have been summarily rejected. This however was a case in which the learned District Judge ought to have required sufficient security to be taken from the respondents Damri Lal and another to whom he has ordered the grant of a certificate. But as the certificate has already been granted the matter ends there. The question whether the Government promissory notes, which stood in the name of Moti Lal, did or did not belong to him must he left for determination by a competent Court. With this remark the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Saunders, J.

I agree.