High CourtsSingle Bench

Angappa Goundan vs Kuppammal

Madras High Court · Decided on 17 October 1968 · Citation: (1969) 82 LW 594 : (1970) 1 MLJ 170

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Anantanarayanan, C.J
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 406 words

M. Anantanarayanan, C.J.—The short point that arises in this revision proceeding is whether a Hindu widow, claiming to be the sole heir to

the assets of her husband, who died intestate, u/s 8 of the Succession Act, 1956 (XXX of 1956), is bound to produce a succession certificate u/s

214(1)(a) of the Succession Act, when she brings forward a suit in a Court for a decree against the debtor of the deceased husband.

2.

It is not necessary to refer to the matter in any great detail, for the point seems to be obvious, whether Section 214(1)(a) or Section 214(1)(b) is

the relevant provision of law, that perhaps, by oversight, there has been no legislative amendment of Section 214 making an exception in the case

of a claim u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act (Central Act XXX of 1955). The matter is not bare of authority. It came up, squarely in the form that

it now arises, except for the distinction that that was a case of an execution of a decree already obtained u/s 214(1)(b), before a learned single

Judge of the Mysore High Court in Basappa v. Siddamma AIR 1966 Mys. 198. The learned Judge held that the party could not proceed without

the production of a succession certificate, and that there was no conflict between Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, and Section 8 of the

Hindu Succession Act, since both could simultaneously apply or be in force.

3.

Of course, if the legislative intent was that persons claiming u/s 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, need not produce a succession certificate when

seeking to recover a debt due in the deceased person, or to execute a decree already obtained by such person, then, either Section 214 should be

suitably amended, or Section 8 should be invested with a overriding or superseding effect. When that has not been done, the party is bound to

produce the succession certificate in respect of the asset claimed. This is also for the protection of the debtor, since learned Counsel for the debtor

states that some one else may, conceivably, claim to be heir of the deceased creditor along with the widow. I, therefore, allow the revision, set

aside the decree and remit the suit for further trial according to law. Time may be granted to the plaintiff (respondent) to obtain and produce the

succession certificate before the suit is finally disposed of. No costs.