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 wordsM. 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.
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.
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.
