Smt.Asha Tiwari vs Assistant Registrar (Audit) & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7107 MP

                                          F.A. No.517/1996
                               1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
                    JABALPUR

                         BEFORE

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY

               FIRST APPEAL NO. 517/1996

Between:-

      SMT ASHA TIWARI,
      W/O LATE RUDRANARAYAN TIWARI,
      AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O MAHAVIR WARD, SEONI,
      AT PRESENT RESIDING AT C/O O.P. TIWARI,
      SANJEEVANI NAGAR, JABALPUR,
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                          ....APPELLANT

      (By Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, Senior Advocate with Shri
      Abhay Tiwari, Advocate)


      AND

1.    ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (AUDIT),
      CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
      BILASPUR.

2.    SMT. RAMKALI BAI,
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
      SO CALLED WIDOW OF RUDRANARAYAN TIWARI,
      VILLAGE SINGPUR, TEH. MEJA,
      ALLAHABAD.

                                    .......RESPONDENTS
                                                                  F.A. No.517/1996
                                                 2



         (By Shri Vibhudendra Mishra, Advocate for respondent
         No.2)



         Arguments heard on              :     17.02.2022
         Order delivered on                  : 11.05.2022

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 JUDGMENT

This First Appeal arises out of order dated 08.11 1996, passed in succession case No.6/1995 by First Additional District Judge, Senoi, whereby the application filed by the applicant/appellant for grant of succession certificate was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that appellant/applicant filed an application for obtaining succession certificate in respect of the terminal benefits of deceased Rudranarayan Tiwari claiming herself to be his widow. It was stated that she was married to Rudranarayan Tiwari on 21.06.1975 at Jabalpur. Rudranarayan Tiwari was working as Cooperative Inspector and posted at Bilaspur. He died on 11.09.1994 in the district hospital, Seoni therefore being his widow and also his F.A. No.517/1996

nominee in service record, she is entitled to receive the amount under the terminal benefits (GPF, PPF, Insurance, Gratuity etc.).

3. The respondent/department though admitted that Rudranarayan Tiwari was working as Cooperative Inspector and his legal wife is entitled to receive the terminal benefits, however objected on the ground that one Ramkali Bai claiming to be the widow of Rudranarayan Tiwari has already filed an application for release of terminal benefits of Late Rudranarayan Tiwari and in support of her application has filed the succession certificate, Kisan Bahi and copy of family register and order of mutation of lands in her name.

4. It was further stated that applicant/appellant Asha Tiwari is nominated in the service record of deceased Rudranarayan Tiwari but this entry is not verified by any officer, hence cannot be relied upon. It was further prayed that since two persons, namely, Asha Tiwari and Ramkali Bai are claiming to be widow of Rudranarayan Tiwari, therefore, Ramkali Bai, is a necessary party.

5. Pursuant to this, a notice was published in the newspaper. Ramkalibai appeared before the Court and in her written statement, she stated that she is married to Rudranarayan Tiwari 35 years ago and after his death, is in possession of all his F.A. No.517/1996

movable and immovable properties and her name was also been recorded in the family register. It was further stated that the application of Asha Tiwari is hit by principle of resjudicata as she had already obtained succession certificate dated 19.10.1995 from the competent Court at Allahabad in case No.101/1995 (Ramkali Bai Vs. Prem Shankar). She has further stated that deceased's elder brother had animosity towards her and therefore, falsely declared her dead.

6. The applicant/appellant denied the claim of Ramkali Bai as she is widow of late Rudranarayan Tiwari. She stated that Ramkalibai was Rudranarayan Tiwari's aunt being married to one Vermdeen, uncle of the deceased. It was further stated that first wife of Rudranarayan Tiwari died in the year 1973 and after the death of the first wife, Rudranarayan Tiwari has married the applicant in the year 1975.

7. The learned Court after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, rejected the application of applicant/appellant on the ground that once succession certificate is granted with respect to properties of the deceased by a competent Court, the same can only be revoked under Section 383 of the Succession Act.

F.A. No.517/1996

8. Mr Awasthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has painstakingly taken this Court through the record and has referred to various provisions of the Succession Act. It is argued that the Court at Allahabad had no jurisdiction to grant the certificate of succession for the properties situated in Madhya Pradesh.

9. Per contra, Shri Vibhudendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment/order. It is stated that once the decision given by the competent Court it would have operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit.

10. As far as the issue regarding applicant/appellant being nominee is concerned, it is observed that nomination does not confer any title or beneficial interest in the amount due. It only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount on payment of which the other party gets a valid discharge of its liability and the property can be claimed by the heirs of the deceased as per the Succession Act.

11. As regards the contention of Shri Mishra that the decision of Allahabad Court will operate as resjudicata in the subsequent proceeding initiated by applicant/appellant Asha Tiwari, it is observed that the proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate is summary in nature and no rights are finally decided F.A. No.517/1996

in such proceedings. Hence, the same would not operate as resjudicata in the present case.

12. It is well settled that succession certificate does not establishes any relationship or title of the certificate holder as heirs of the deceased. It only facilitates the grantee to collect the dues of deceased and allows the debtors to make payment to the grantee without incurring any risk.

13. As far as the contention that Allahabad High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application regarding the property situated at Madhya Pradesh, it is pertinent to note that as per the evidence on record, late Rudranarayan Tiwari was permanent resident of Allahabad and had other immovable properties there. On account of his service, he was residing at Bilaspur. Hence, the objection in this regard by the appellant is not sustainable.

14. Sections 372 and 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read thus :-

372: Application for certificate:

(1) Application for such a certificate shall be made to the District Judge by a petition signed and verified by or on F.A. No.517/1996

behalf of the applicant in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the signing and verification of a plaint by or on behalf of a plaintiff, and setting forth the following particulars, namely:--

(a) the time of the death of the deceased

(b) 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;

(c) the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residences;

(d) the right in which the petitioner claims;

(e) the absence of any impediment under section 370 or under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment, to the grant of the certificate or to the validity thereof if it were granted; and

(f) the debts and securities in respect of which the certificate is applied for.

(2) If the petition contains any averment which the person verifying it knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, that person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 198 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).

[(3) Application for such a certificate may be made in respect of any debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof.] F.A. No.517/1996

383. Revocation of certificate:- A certificate granted under this Part may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely:--

(a) that the proceedings to obtain the certificate were defective in substance;

(b) that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Court of something material to the case;

(c) that the certificate was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;

(d) that the certificate has become useless and inoperative through circumstances;

(e) that a decree or order made by a competent Court in a suit or other proceeding with respect to effects comprising debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked.

15. A reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Succession Act make it clear that a succession certificate can be granted in an application in which necessary particulars are set out as mentioned in Section 372. In order to succeed in the succession application, the applicant has to adduce cogent evidence in respect of the claim application. However, once a succession certificate is F.A. No.517/1996

granted, it could only be revoked for the reasons set out under Section 383.

16. In the instant case, the dispute is with regard to the claim of terminal benefits of late Rudranarayan Tiwari. Applicant/appellant Asha Tiwari as well as the respondent No.2 Ramkali Bai are both claiming to be the widow of Rudranarayan Tiwari. Respondent Ramkali Bai has obtained a succession certificate with regard to the terminal benefits of late Rudranarayan Tiwari from the competent Court at Allahabad. Procedure contemplated under the Succession Act is summary in nature and grant of certificate does not strike out or destroy the claim of others. If there are rival claims same can be sorted out in the appropriate proceedings.

17. However, once the succession certificate is granted by a competent Court, the same could only be revoked under Section 383 or it can be challenged by way of appeal under Section 384 of the Act. Hence, another application for claiming the same death benefits for which a succession certificate has already been granted is not maintainable and rightly rejected by the trial Court.

18. The applicant/appellant had the recourse to file an application for revocation of the succession certificate granted at Allahabad or she could have file an appeal for challenging the F.A. No.517/1996

same, as she was not made a party in the said succession case No. 101/1995 (Ramkali Bai Vs. Prem Shankar), however, it is admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no such proceedings has been taken by the appellant till date.

19. In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the present appeal and is accordingly dismissed.

(Nandita Dubey) Judge SMT. GEETHA NAIR 11/05/2022 gn 2022.05.11 17:01:45 +05'30'