CERTIFIED COPY OF SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE CAN BE FILED FOR PASSING MONEY DECREE. THE DEFENDANT HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY COMPETENT COURT = WHETHER THE original succession certificate has to be filed. AND WHETHER THE Certified copy of succession certificate was not issued by the court which granted the same IS INVALID = When the original certificate which was engrossed on proper stamp duty was filed in another suit, certified copy thereof was granted and it was filed in the trial Court. When the succession certificate covers several debts and several securities, single original certificate cannot be filed in all the suits. Therefore, the plaintiff obtained certified copy from another suit where it was filed and filed the same in the trial court to prove his entitlement of the suit debt on behalf of the deceased Narayanamma. = When once succession certificate Ex.A3 is filed into the Court, the plaintiff need not prove in this suit that he was adopted son of late Narayanamma and that therefore he is entitled to recover the suit debt as legal heir of the payee. On the basis of mere succession certificate, the plaintiff is entitled to obtain decree in the suit, when there is no dispute about Ex.A1 pronote and when discharge pleaded by the defendant was disbelieved.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9686

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU          

SECOND APPEAL No.1090 OF 1998    

01.03.2013

Alla Nagireddy

G.Narayana Reddy

JUDGMENT:
     
Unfortunate plaintiff, who failed in both the courts below, is the appellant in
the second appeal.
 He filed the suit for recovery of Rs.11,900/- from the
defendant on the basis of Ex.A1 promissory note dated 1.7.1979 executed by the
defendant in favour of one Narayanamma.
Narayanamma is no more.
Execution of  Ex.A1 pronote by the defendant after receiving the consideration thereunder is
admitted.
Plea of the defendant is one of discharge of the amount to Narayanamma
when she was alive.  
The trial court disbelieved the plea of discharge.
But the
trial court, after trial, dismissed the suit on the ground that Ex.A3 succession certificate dated 20.12.1988 in favour of the plaintiff is invalid.
On appeal
by the plaintiff, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal on the ground
that Ex.A3 being certified copy of succession certificate, no decree can be
passed on its basis.

This Court while admitting the second appeal framed the following substantial
question of law:
"Having held that execution of the pronote is proved and the defendant failed to discharge his burden that the pronote amount he paid to the deceased Narayanamma, whether both the courts below are correct in non-suiting the plaintiff only on the ground that adoption is not proved and when in fact the succession certificate is proved, entitling the plaintiff to receive the amount
under the pronote, since the order of granting the succession certificate has become final."

The plaintiff/appellant claims to be adopted son of Alla Narayanamma, who is the
payee under Ex.A1 pronote.
Though the plaintiff did not obtain any succession
certificate in his favour at the time of filing of the suit, subsequent to filing of the suit he obtained succession certificate of Narayanamma in his favour from the District Court, Kurnool. 
 It is commented by the trial court
that the defendant is not a party to the proceedings relating to the succession
certificate.  The defendant need not be made as party to the proceedings
relating to the succession certificate.  In fact the plaintiff impleaded no
party at all in the proceedings relating to the succession certificate.  He can
do so as there are no rival claimants for succession certificate for the
plaintiff.  It is only after making paper publication of the succession
certificate proceedings, the District Court, after following due procedure
prescribed by law, issued the succession certificate.   The aggrieved party if
any has to question the same in higher Court.
The defendant who is not a party
to the succession certificate proceedings and who is not a rival claimant for
the estate of the deceased Narayanamma, is not entitled to question the
succession certificate.  
Succession certificate is only an instrument which
confers right on the holder thereof to receive the amounts due on the pronote or
other security which are mentioned therein and to give valid discharge to the
person liable to the deceased creditor; and nothing more.   
Since the defendant
is only a debtor and has no claim over the estate of Narayanamma, he has no
jurisdiction either to plead or to question validity of Ex.A3 succession
certificate.

The only plea of the defendant in the suit was one of discharge and it was
disbelieved by the trial court and it has become final.
The lower appellate Court without going into the question of validity of the
certificate issued by the District Court, came to a different conclusion that
certified copy of succession certificate cannot be issued and cannot be produced
in court by the plaintiff and no decree can be passed thereon. 
 According to the
lower appellate Court original succession certificate has to be filed.Certified copy of succession certificate was not issued by the court which granted the same.  
When the original certificate which was engrossed on proper
stamp duty was filed in another suit, certified copy thereof was granted and it
was filed in the trial Court.  
When the succession certificate covers several
debts and several securities, single original certificate cannot be filed in all
the suits. 
Therefore, the plaintiff obtained certified copy from another suit
where it was filed and filed the same in the trial court to prove his
entitlement of the suit debt on behalf of the deceased Narayanamma.  
In any
event, at the time of filing the same and marking the certified copy, there was
no objection by anybody.  
This question was not at all put forwarded by the
defendant in the trial Court.  For the first time, the lower appellate court
took the said ground, perhaps by itself and dismissed the appeal.

There is no material before the Court to show that the succession certificate
covered by Ex.A3 was set aside by any higher court in any appeal filed by rival
claimants for the estate of deceased Narayanamma.  Therefore, the plaintiff/
appellant is entitled to recover the suit debt from the defendant and to give
valid discharge of the debt in case it is paid.

Therefore, I find on the substantial question of law that the trial court as
well as the lower appellate Court erred in non-suiting the plaintiff on the
ground that Ex.A3 succession certificate is invalid.

When once succession certificate Ex.A3 is filed into the Court, the plaintiff need not prove in this suit that he was adopted son of late Narayanamma and that therefore he is entitled to recover the suit debt as legal heir of the payee.
On the basis of mere succession certificate, the plaintiff is entitled to obtain decree in the suit, when there is no dispute about Ex.A1 pronote and when discharge pleaded by the defendant was disbelieved.

In the result, the second appeal is allowed with costs through out granting
decree as prayed for in the suit.
__________________________  
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J      
Date: 01.03.2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.