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
11 paragraphs · 262 wordsAppellant''s first contention is that plaintiff: being only the assignee of the person to whom succession certificate had been granted is not entitled
to a decree without obtalning a succession certificate in his own name. This contention is supported by the ruling in Allah Dad Khan v. Sant Ram
ILR (1912) A. 74 but that decision has been doubted in Rang Lal v. Annu Lal ILR (1913) A. 21 and has been dissented from by both the Judges
in Raman Lalji v. Hari Das (1916) 14 A.L.J. 677 One of the main grounds for the decision in Allah Dad Khan v. Sant Ram ILR (1912) A. 74 is
that Section 16 of the Succession Certificate Act affords protection only when payment is made to the certificate-holder, and not to his assignee.,
We respectfully regret that we are unable to accept this argument, for payment to the assignee is as valid as payment to the assignor in the absence
of any restriction imposed by law. Further Section 4(1) of the Act only requires the production of a certificate and not a certificate in the name of
the person suing. Agreeing with Raman Lalji v. Hari Das (1916) 14 A.L.J. 677, we overrule this contention.
The next contention is that plaintiff''s assignor obtained the succession certificate after she had effected the transfer to plaintiff. This may or may
not form a ground for revoking the certificate u/s 18, but until revoked the certificate is valid and affords protection and this objection must also fail.
The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.