Mst. Haleema and Others vs Sheikh Ab. Aziz

Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.—This appeal is directed against revocation order of the succession certificate dated 19.5.2003 by District &

Session Judge, Srinagar in Succession case No. 43/01.

The succession certificate was issued in favour of petitioner No. 1 widow of the extent of l/8th and alleged daughter petitioner No. 2 the extent of

7/8th, consequent on death of one Sheikh Nazir Ahmed. As indicated in the order and certificate, Haleema and Rehana (widow and alleged

daughter) moved application u/s J&K Succession Certificate Act 1976 (1920 A.D.) before District Judge Srinagar in respect of an amount of Rs.

2, 86, 836/-lying in the Saving Bank A/c No. 9964 and medi-claim with the Govt. due for payment to deceased Sheikh Nazir Ahmed. In the

certificate proceedings except these two no one was arrayed as party or shown as non-applicant. The District Judge, Srinagar issued certificate in

favour of the petitioner in the ration of 1/8 : 7/8 in respect of above debt to the widow and daughter of the deceased respectively. One Sheikh

Abdul Aziz father of the deceased filed an application on 29.8.2002 before District Judge, Srinagar for revocation of succession certificate granted

to the two petitioners on the ground that being father of the deceased he was not arrayed as party or shown as non-applicant in the succession

certificate. The deceased died issueless and the applicant No. 2 shown to be daughter of the deceased is instead daughter of one Noor Mohd.

Darzi brother of petitioner No. 1. All these facts have been suppressed and concealed and the certificate has been obtained fraudulently.

Upon hearing the parties after affording them opportunities to file objections and on their participation in proceedings, the Ld. District Judge

came to the conclusion that the non-applicant to the revocation application and the persons who succeeded in getting succession certificate earlier

did conceal and suppress the facts that the applicant Sheikh Abdul Aziz is the father of the deceased who is living and that non-applicant No. 2

Rehana, is not real daughter of the deceased as alleged in the original application for the certificate (now claimed to be adopted daughter of the

deceased). These facts and circumstances are admitted by the other side. Therefore, on concealment of these material facts the earlier order and

the issuance of earlier succession certificate is revoked and the parties are relegated to the initial position as if no certificate has been issued with

direction to file supplementary objections for determination of the entitlement of concerned person(s) to the certificate on merits. The certificate

holders before its revocation are being asked to deposit the amount in court.

All the above facts would fairly indicate that the two petitioners have failed to comply with provisions of Section 6 of the Succession Certificate

Act which inter alia provides that in the prescribed application the particulars of the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their

respective residence shall be averred and set forth. It is also requirement of the Section that the right in which the petitioner(s) claim the certificate

is disclosed and set-forth with full particulars. Obviously this has not been done. Section 18 empowers the District Court to revoke the certificate if

the certificate is granted in proceedings being defective in substance and that the certificate was obtained by concealment of facts, material to the

case or fraudulently buy making false suggestion. The facts are admitted by the other side fully answer the above description of causes legally

tenable to revoke the certificate.

The Ld. District Judge has relegated parties to position prior to issuance of the certificate before its revocation and left open for parties full

opportunity to participate in the proceedings by filing pleadings followed by other steps required to be taken before deciding the parties claim to

the certificate. Keeping in view the nature of the proceedings, the District Judge is to decide in a summary manner the right to the certificate. The

consequential direction close on revocation of the certificate that the amount in respect of which certificate had been issued be re-deposited or

proceedings as taken and orders passed cannot be said to be beyond pale of law. After all the certificate (granted earlier) revoked by subsequent

order and the follow up action taken thereto cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. Therefore it cannot be said that the trial court cannot

peruse the terms and conditions of certificate and the undertaking security furnished thereto, to secure the interests of rightful claimant(s) having

comparable title prima-facie to the debt due to deceased. The contention of the Ld. Counsel that the District Judge cannot pass an order for re-

deposit of the whole amount when relation of Petitioner No. 1 to the deceased as widow is admitted is not tenable. Once the certificate is revoked,

there is no Succession Certificate which can be enforced at the relevant time. Therefore the direction under enabling provisions of law for deposit

of the whole amount is not vitiated by law. The whole purpose of getting security is to indemnify persons who may be entitled to the whole or any

part of the debts due to deceased as shown in the Succession Certificate. The counsel may take up this matter before the Ld. District Court and

the District Judge shall be free to pass such order as he may deem proper, after keeping in view the additional title to the debt due to the deceased

in question of the persons before the court and to indemnify and secure the interests of the person(s) who may be entitled to whole or any part of

the debts.

Viewed thus the appeal is Dismissed.