Badri Narain Sahu vs Lachminia

Agarwala, J.—The opposite-patty Lachminia the widow of a Hindu, applied to the District Judge for the issue of a succession certificate in respect of three post office cash certificates of the nominal value of Rupees 6,000. The application was opposed by a reversioner of the deceased husband of the applicant on the ground that a Hindu widow is entitled only to the usufruct of the estate of her deceased husband and not to the corpus. He prayed that a condition might be imposed on the grant of the certificate disentitling the widow from negotiating, transferring or spending the principal sum. A certificate was granted unconditionally by the District Judge. The reversioner preferred this appeal. A similar application was made by the reversioners in the case of Jai Dei v. Banwari Lal (1913) 35 All 249 = 19 IC 417, where the widow had applied for a certificate in respect of debts due to her husband. The District Judge in that case granted a certificate to the widow on the condition that she should not disturb the capital sum and should draw interest only on the debt. The High Court set aside the order of the District Judge and directed him to enquire whether there was any necessity to take security from the widow in the circumstances of the case, with the direction that if it was found that the security was necessary a certificate should be granted conditional on her furnishing security. In the case of Mausilla Kuer v. Sukhdei, 1923 All 579 = 74 IC 761, the Allahabad High Court however in a case where the widow of a separated Hindu applied for a certificate to enable her to collect the debts due to her husband, held that, in the ordinary way, a Hindu widow ought not to be called upon to give security at all. Their Lordships said:

No doubt there are many reversioners who rare interested but it is not the business of the Court to go out of its way to look after the reversioners who have no vested interest, and to assume everything against the widow..... The object of a Court is to grant certificates to the persons lawfully entitled to them and not to go out of its way to make it difficult for them to obtain them.

Agreeing with these observations, I see no reason to interfere with the order of the Court below. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Saunders, J.

I agree.