Madhwapathi Venkatakrishna Rao vs Panditha Narasubhai and Another

Chandra Reddy, J.—This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of East Godavari at Rajamundry dismissing a petition for the grant of a succession certificate.

The appellant claiming to "be a legatee under a registered'' will executed by one Achakkamma filed an application for the grant of a succession certificate for the sum of Rs. 6,000/-, the amount of legacy under the will. He also put forward the case that he was the adopted son of Achakkamma, but we were not concerned with that question in this enquiry.

This was opposed by the first respondent, the maternal grandfather of the said Achakkamma, and the second respondent who claimed to be the nearest reversioner to the estate of Achakkamma''s husband. The objection raised on behalf of these respondents was that the will was not executed by the said Achakkamma while in a sound and disposing state of mind and that even otherwise she had no testamentary capacity in respect of this amount.

The learned District Judge without going into any of the questions raised, dismissed the petition contenting himself with the observation that it raised very many complicated questions of law and fact. It is against this order that this appeal is filed.

I am afraid that the order of the District Judge has to be set aside. Merely because complicated questions of fact and law arise in an application u/s 375 that does not entitle the Judge to dismiss the application.

A reference to Clause (3) of Section 373 makes this position clear. The Court has nevertheless to grant the certificate to the person having prima facie the best title thereto under that provision. The decisions relied upon by the learned Judge do not support the proposition enunciated by him. Even these rulings lay down that it must be given to the person who prima facie has the best title. In the case the appellant claims to be a legatee under the will, which is a registered one. If there is no other person who had got a better claim than the applicant, he has certainly a right to the grant of the succession certificate. The District Judge has not considered whether a will has been executed by Achakkamma as contended by the Appellant. If there is a registered will as put forward by the appellant and if there is no other person who has got a preferential claim to the estate of Achakkamma, he can be said to be a person who is prima facie best entitled to the succession certificate. The estate can be safeguarded by calling upon him to furnish security as required by Section 375, Succession Act. It follows that the order under appeal is unsustainable and has to be set aside.

The District Judge will, therefore, go into the question whether a will was executed by Achakkamma as claimed by the appellant and whether he is prima facie entitled to the succession certificate. The scope of the enquiry is the one indicated in Clause (3) of Section 373, Succession Act.

In the result, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for disposal according to law. The appeal is allowed with costs. The costs of the enquiry in the lower Court will abide the result.