Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 214 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Rani Pravabati Roy And Ors. vs Saileshnath Roy And Ors. on 14 January, 1977
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the above contention placed reliance on the case of Rani Pravabati Roy v. Saileshnath Roy, AIR 1978 Cal 147 wherein it has been held that production of a succession certificate is not a condition precedent to the institution of the suit by the successor of the deceased creditor.
Aparti Panda vs Govinda Sahu on 8 August, 1983
In Aparti Pande v. Govinda Sah, AIR 1984 Orissa 1 this question arose and it was held that on the death of the original decree holder, the legal representatives cannot continue the proceedings without being required to produce a succession certificate. The same situation does not apply to "proceeding with a suit".
Abdul Majid vs Shamsherali Fakruddin on 8 February, 1940
9. On the other hand learned counsel for the non-petitioner placed reliance on Abdul Majid v. Shamsherali Fakruddin, AIR 1940 Bom 285 wherein it was held that Section 214, of the Indian Succession Act, applies where the suit was originally instituted by the creditor himself and he subsequently dies and also to a case where it is instituted by his legal representatives. This case does not say anything about the substitution of the legal representatives and proceeding with the suit without a succession certificate.
K. Laxminarayan vs V. Gopalaswami And Anr. on 27 March, 1963
In K. Laxminarayan v. V. Gopalaswami, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 438 also the Bombay case cited above was followed but it can be said to be not applicable as it does not deal with substitution.
Tynala Musalayya vs J. Mohanraj And Ors. on 9 July, 1982
In Tynala Mussalayya v. J. Mohanraj, AIR 1982 Andh Pra 410 it has been held that the legal representative of the deceased plaintiffs claiming under a will can be added as legal
representatives of the deceased plaintiff and it is not necessary that a probate should be produced before the litigation is continued.
Kasumari Das vs Makku And Ors. on 14 May, 1926
10. Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner is in Kasumaridas v. Makku, AIR 1927 All 227 where the plaintiffs failed to produce a succession certificate within time allowed by the Court and his suit was dismissed It was held that he cannot claim a decree at the appellate stage by subsequently obtaining a succession certificate. In this case also the
question whether the legal representatives could be substituted before obtaining a succession certificate was not in question. Section 214(1)(a) of the Indian Succession Act, is only a restriction on the passing of a decree in favour of the representatives of a deceased creditor without obtaining a succession certificate but there is nothing in this provision to the effect that the legal representatives shall not be substituted without obtaining a succession certificate or the trial of the suit shall not be proceeded without obtaining a succession certificate. The learned lower court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law by not substituting the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs in proceeding with the suit. The order passed can also be said to be illegal exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Court.
1