Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Vimla Devi vs State on 7 May, 2026 cites

Shri Banarsi Dass vs Mrs. Teeku Dutta And Anr on 27 April, 2005

9. I find the Supreme Court in Banarsi Dass Vs. Teeku Dutta MANU/SC/0333/2005 : (2005) 4 SCC 449 to have held (i) that the main object of a Succession Certificate is to facilitate collection of debts on succession and afford protection to parties paying debts to representatives of the deceased person; (ii) all that the Succession Certificate purports to do is to facilitate the collection of debts, to regulate the administration of succession and to protect persons who deal with the alleged representatives of the deceased persons; (iii) such a Certificate does not give any general power of administration on the estate of the deceased; (iv) the grant of a certificate does not establish title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased; (v) a Succession Certificate is intended to protect the debtors, which means that where a debtor of a deceased person either voluntarily pays his debt to a person holding a certificate or is compelled by a decree of the Court to pay it to the person, he is lawfully discharged; and, (vi) the grant of a certificate does not establish a title of SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page No. 8 of 13 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 96 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Vimla Devi vs Government Of National Capital ... on 26 May, 2023

7. Petitioner took the witness stand as PW-1. PW-1 deposed that the deceased Mr. B.L. Kothari @ Bhanwar Lal Kothari was her father-in-law who expired on 14.11.1991 at Delhi and she relied upon his death certificate as Ex. PW-1/1 (OS&R). PW-1 further SC No. 54/25 Vimla Devi Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi) & Ors. 3 of 13 Page No.Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M K Ohri - Full Document
1