The High Court of Gujarat has dismissed a Civil Revision Application challenging the grant of a succession certificate to the nominee and wife of a deceased government employee, reiterating that a succession certificate is a summary proceeding that indemnifies the debtor and does not finally determine the title or heirship of the parties.
The High Court of Gujarat, presided over by Justice J. C. Doshi, dismissed the revision application filed by Satvantiben Pratapsinh Dalal, who claimed to be the first wife of the deceased, Pratapsinh Harwarilal Dalal. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts granting the succession certificate to Ranjanben Pratapsinh Dalal and her children, who were recorded as the nominees in the deceased’s service records. The Court observed that the grant of a succession certificate “does not forfeit proprietary right of the revisionists” and is intended to facilitate the collection of debts.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose following the death of Pratapsinh Harwarilal Dalal, a Veterinary Doctor and Assistant Professor at the Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Agricultural University, Junagadh, who died in a road accident on May 3, 2016.
Ranjanben Pratapsinh Dalal (Respondent No. 1), claiming to be the legally wedded wife married in 1993, along with her two children, applied for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to claim the deceased’s service benefits. Ranjanben was the recorded nominee in the deceased’s service book.
The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh, granted the succession certificate to Ranjanben and her children on October 21, 2016. Satvantiben (the Revisionist), claiming to have married the deceased in 1977, challenged this order in the District Court, alleging that the certificate was obtained by fraud and suppression of material facts regarding the existence of other family members. The 4th Additional District Judge, Junagadh, dismissed her appeal on August 31, 2020. Satvantiben then moved the High Court via a Civil Revision Application.
Arguments of the Parties
The Revisionist’s Arguments: Mr. K.V. Shelat, appearing for the revisionists, argued that:
- Satvantiben is the legally wedded wife of the deceased, having married him in 1977.
- The original petitioners suppressed material facts in violation of Section 372(1)(c) of the Act by not disclosing the particulars of other near relatives.
- Relevant documents, including a marriage certificate and birth certificates of her two sons, were ignored by the Appellate Court.
- Public citation should have been issued at the deceased’s permanent address in Haryana.
- Citing Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar (2024), it was argued that “general principle of succession should override the nomination” and the nominee is merely a trustee.
The Respondents’ Arguments: Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate for the respondents, contended that:
- Satvantiben failed to prove she was the legally wedded wife.
- The revisionists failed to follow the procedure under Order 41 Rule 27 and 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage.
- The service records of the deceased indisputably showed Ranjanben as the wife and nominee, a designation made by the deceased himself in the presence of colleagues.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice J. C. Doshi upheld the lower court’s findings, noting that the revisionist failed to produce satisfactory evidence to substantiate her claim of marriage.
On Evidence and Procedure: The Court observed that the Appellate Court had conducted a detailed analysis and found that the revisionist “failed to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased.” The Court noted that mere production of photocopies without following the procedure under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC was insufficient. Citing Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012), the Court stated, “It is not the business of the Appellate Court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower Court.”
On Nomination and Service Records: The Court placed significant weight on the service records, where the deceased had explicitly cancelled an earlier nomination in favor of his mother and nominated Ranjanben and her children in 1995. The Court referenced Rule 85 of the Gujarat Civil Services Pension Rules, 2002, noting that the nomination was made in favor of family members as defined in the rules.
On the Nature of Succession Certificates: The Court emphasized the summary nature of proceedings under the Indian Succession Act. Referring to Section 373(3) of the Act, Justice Doshi observed:
“In view of section 373(3) of the Act… he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto.”
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (2005), the Court reiterated that a succession certificate “does not give any general power of administration on the estate of the deceased nor establish title to the grantee… but only furnishes him with authority to collect his debts.”
Furthermore, citing Sandhya Banerjee v. Shyama Banerjee (2010), the Court held:
“Succession certificate can be granted in favour of any person, may be a heir or a nominee… Granting of succession certificate does not necessarily prove any relation between the deceased and the applicant.”
Decision
The High Court rejected the revision application, confirming the grant of the succession certificate to Ranjanben and her children. The Court clarified that the issuance of the certificate “does not forfeit proprietary right of the revisionists” and that the certificate holder acts as a trustee for the legal heirs.
“Resultantly, the petition sans merit and accordingly, it is rejected.”
A request by the revisionists to stay the implementation of the judgment was refused.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Heir of Decd. Pratapsinh Harwarilal Dalal – Satvantiben Pratapsinh Dalal vs. Ranjanben Pratapsinh Dalal & Ors.
- Case Number: R/Civil Revision Application No. 146 of 2020
- Coram: Justice J. C. Doshi
- Counsel for Revisionists: Mr. K.V. Shelat
- Counsel for Respondent No. 1: Mr. Shalin Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ninad P. Shah
- Counsel for Respondent University: Mr. Amar D. Mithani
