TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Succession Certificate not res judicata. High Court error. Remand for fresh decision.</h1> <h3>Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma And Ors. Versus Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai And Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court held that the grant of a Succession Certificate does not constitute res judicata in subsequent suits between the same parties. The High ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether an order granting Succession Certificate under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 operates as res judicata to a suit for partition filed in a civil court between the same parties.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Res Judicata and Succession Certificate:The primary issue in this appeal is whether an order granting a Succession Certificate under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 can operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit for partition between the same parties. The principle of res judicata, as enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), prohibits courts from trying issues that have been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties and have been heard and finally decided by that court.2. Summary Nature of Succession Certificate Proceedings:The proceedings for the grant of a Succession Certificate are summary in nature. Under Section 373(3) of the Indian Succession Act, if the court finds the questions of law or fact too intricate or difficult to determine in a summary proceeding, it may still grant the certificate based on a prima facie title. This indicates that the grant of a Succession Certificate is not a final decision on the rights of the parties but merely a determination of prima facie title.3. Effect of Succession Certificate:Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act specifies that the certificate is conclusive only with respect to the debts and securities specified therein and affords full indemnity to the debtor for payments made in good faith to the holder of the certificate. This provision underscores that the certificate's effect is limited and does not constitute a final adjudication of the parties' rights.4. Explanation VIII to Section 11 of CPC:Explanation VIII to Section 11 of CPC states that an issue heard and finally decided by a court of limited jurisdiction shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, even if the court did not have the competence to try the subsequent suit. However, Section 387 of the Indian Succession Act clarifies that decisions made under Part X of the Act (which includes Section 373) do not bar the trial of the same question in any subsequent suit or proceeding between the same parties.5. Judicial Precedents:The judgment references the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta v. Rochiram Nagdeo, which emphasizes that it is the decision on an issue, not a mere finding on any incidental question, that operates as res judicata. Additionally, the case of Mt. Charjo and Anr. v. Dina Nath and Ors. reinforces that the enquiry in proceedings for the grant of a Succession Certificate is summary and does not bar a regular suit for the adjustment of claims among heirs.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the grant of a Succession Certificate does not operate as res judicata in subsequent suits between the same parties. The High Court erred in applying the principle of res judicata to the second appeal arising out of the suit. The case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed, and costs were imposed on the parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
