Dismissed

Chand Kaur v. General Public & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2010CR/7941/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to frame issues in a succession certificate proceeding. The Court held that while framing issues is not mandatory in summary proceedings under the Succession Act, it is open to the Court to frame points if the title involves intricate questions of law or fact to determine prima facie best title.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed, affording the parties one year to seek adjudication of the complicated title controversy in a regular suit.

Chand Kaur Vs General Public & Anr. — Succession and Inheritance | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.R.No.7941 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.R.No.7941 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: May 9, 2012.

Chand Kaur

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

General Public and another

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

*** * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Vikrant Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.**

¶10

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶11

This is an unfortunate litigation between Chand Kaur petitioner and Manjit Singh. The petitioner is mother of Mehtab Singh but while serving in Delhi police died in an encounter during his service. The petitioner in the capacity as mother has filed a petition for issuance of succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. As Manju Singh was not impleaded, she sought intervention and was impleaded as respondent No.2, to contest the petition for succession Certificate. Respondent No.2 Manju Singh claimed that she was widow of Mehtab Singh having one daughter born out of the wedlock. The details of the controversy between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is not relevant, at this stage, for the adjudication of the present revision petition. It is sufficient to observe that the petitioner had filed an application for framing of issues especially an issue whether respondent Manju

¶12

...1

¶13

C.R.No.7941 of 2011 (O&M)

¶14

Singh is widow of Mehtab Singh and in the said capacity was entitled to contest the claim of the petitioner for succession Certificate or to claim succession. The said application has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court observing that the proceedings for the grant of succession Certificate are summary in nature and that there is no justification for framing issues.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that framing of issues would make it convenient for the trial Court to determine the controversy and enable the parties to produce evidence.

¶16

Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgment in case Rajinder Singh Vs.Surjit Kaur and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 423 , in support of his contention that proceedings for the grant of succession Certificate are summary in nature and that it is only the civil Court where the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated warranting framing of issues.

¶17

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents and I am of the opinion that as per the provisions of Section 373 (2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, if a Court comes to a positive finding that person applying under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, is entitled to the property claimed, it has necessarily to grant succession Certificate in his favour. However, if the Court cannot decide the right to the Certificate without determining intricate questions of law or fact, it may either refuse to grant the Certificate leaving the parties to get

¶18

...2

¶19

C.R.No.7941 of 2011 (O&M)

¶20

their rights determined in a suit or in its discretion grant a Certificate to the applicant if he appears to be a person having prima facie “best title” thereto. In the present case, the controversy between the petitioner and the respondent is as to who can be held to be holder of prima facie best title to the property claimed in proceedings for succession Certificate. So far as the framing of issues in summary proceedings is concerned, it is not disputed that the provisions of Order 14 Rule 1 CPC are not strictly applicable. Order 14 Rule 1 CPC enables a civil Court to frame issues on issues of fact and issues of law. In Makhan Lal Bangal Vs. Manas Bhunia 2001 (2) SCC 652 , Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that issues are important as they determine the scope of a trial by laying down the path for the trial to proceed, free from diversions and departures. It was observed by the Court as follows: -

¶21

“The evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided.”

¶22

A perusal of the above said observations and the statutory provisions of Order 14 Rule 1 CPC, makes it clear that

¶23

...3

¶24

C.R.No.7941 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

framing of issues is necessary for every contested regular civil suit. So far as proceedings under the Succession Act, 1925, are concerned, the said proceedings for the grant of succession Certificate are summary in nature. The rights of the parties can be claimed before the said Court. Whether these fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the said Court, is required to be determined by the said Court. It is also open to the said Court to leave the complicated questions of title to be adjudicated by the civil Court while determining as to which of the parties has got “best title” to the property claimed. No doubt the Court is not required to frame issues but it is always open to the Court to frame points for determination in order to enable the Court to proceed to determine the actual point of controversy in order to arrive at a just conclusion. In the present case, the lower Court has exercised the discretion not to frame the issues. The said subjective satisfaction does not deserve to be interfered with.

¶26

The revision petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner or the respondent to seek adjudication of the complicated controversy in accordance with law before an appropriate forum. It will be appreciated in case the proceedings before the trial Court are disposed of expeditiously preferrably within a period of one year.

(M.M.S.BEDI)

JUDGE

May 9, 2012. rka

...4

Chand Kaur v. General Public & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Kaur v. General Public & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parminder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Jagtar Singh Vs Veerpal Kaur

Aashish Goel Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Harpreet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kuldip Singh Vs State of Punjab & Others

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.