Karnataka High Court
V Ramaswamy vs Nil on 16 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6709
MFA No. 4760 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4760 OF 2021 (ISA)
BETWEEN:
1. V. RAMASWAMY
S/O LATE V.R.VENKATARAMANI
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
AND R/AT NO 672,
2ND FLOOR, 8TH B MAIN,
VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT
BILEKAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560076
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.S.SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NIL
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T ...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 384 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2019
PASSED IN P AND SC.NO.159/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU CCH-30, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 372 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6709
MFA No. 4760 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed challenging the order of rejection
in part passed in P & S.C.No.159/2019 in respect of succession
certificate in respect of shares of the mother of the petitioner in
entirety and in part in respect of his father on two grounds that
in one petition, Court can consider grant of succession
certificate to one party only and the other ground is that the
mother had died at Chennai. Hence, consideration of claim in
respect of deceased mother does not arise.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
vehemently contend that allowing of petition in part by the Trial
Court is erroneous and there is no any specific bar under the
Indian Succession Act, 1924 not to grant the succession
certificate in respect of both the parents in one petition. The
learned counsel would submit that the very approach of the
Trial Court is erroneous in only considering the death certificate
which discloses that mother of the petitioner had died at
Chennai and the Trial Court has not considered the acquisition
of shares at Bengaluru .
NC: 2024:KHC:6709
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also
brought to notice of this Court provisions of Section 372(1)(b)
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which states that the
ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death
and, if such residence was not within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the Judge to whom the application is made, then
the property of the deceased within those limits. The counsel
referring this provision would contend that all the share
certificates relating to the deceased mother is within Bengaluru,
since the same are purchased in Bengaluru in respect of the
company which are in existence in Bengaluru. Under such
circumstance, the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the
petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and having perused the material on record, though it is not
pleaded that both the parents resided along with him, but the
Trial Court, while passing the order, in Para No.6 observed that
both the parents of the petitioner resided with him during their
life time and when the Court has taken note of the same in
Para No.6, erroneously proceeded to observe in Para No.7 of
NC: 2024:KHC:6709
the order that mother died at Chennai. Hence, the petitioner is
not entitled for grant of succession certificate.
6. Having perused the provisions of Section 372(1)(b)
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, it is very clear that ordinary
residence of the deceased at the time of the death is to be
taken note of and no document is placed before the Court with
regard to ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of her
death. The very provision further provides that if such
residence was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of
the Judge to whom the application is made, then the property
of the deceased within those limits can be taken note of. In the
case on hand, learned counsel for the appellant has brought to
notice of this Court that the succession certificate sought is in
respect of the share which are in the name of the mother.
Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court that the
details mentioned in Schedule 1 stands in the name of V.R.
Venkataramani and also brought to notice of this Court that
succession certificates are not granted in respect of Schedule 2
share certificates standing in the name of the parents jointly,
Schedule 3 standing exclusively in the name of the mother,
Schedule 4 standing in the name of both the parents, Schedule
NC: 2024:KHC:6709
5 standing in the name of V.R. Venkataramani and Schedule 7
standing in the name of both the parents. Having considered
the said submission and also reason assigned for not granting
the succession certificates only on the ground that the
deceased died at Chennai, and hence the order requires to be
modified granting succession certificates in respect of Schedule
Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Succession
certificate is granted in respect of Schedule Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and
7. which are rejected by the Trail Court and the earlier order is
modified to the said extent.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
