TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1909 (6) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t ran in these terms, whether, in the case of a debt existing in the life of the creditor, but which did not become payable until after the death of the creditor, the heirs of the creditor can sue and obtain a decree without the production of a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act. The case is to be determined on the terms of Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act which says, no Court shall pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof except on the production, among other things, of a certificate granted under this Act and having the debt specified therein. Had it not been that there was a previous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avash Chandra Mitter has asked us not to enforce the provisions of the Succession Certificate Act against him, and has drawn our attention to the fact that this is an application to the High Court under Section 25 of the Small Cause Court Act, where interference is a matter of discretion. But this is not a matter as between the parties to the suit; it goes much further, because if the plaintiff is not compelled to take out a certificate then to the extent of that concession made in his favour, the general revenue will suffer. Perhaps it would not inflict a great loss on the country, still it would be a departure from a general principle in a wrong direction. 3. Therefore, we send back the case with the direction that, before a decree is pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....doubt that the word 'debt' in its ordinary legal acceptation means a debt either owing, or accruing, or, as put in the case of Webb v. Stenton (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 518, it is either a sum of money now payable or a sum of money which will become payable in the future by reason of a present obligation. This view appears to have been taken by the Judicial Committee in the case of Syud Tuffuzzool Hossein Khan v. Rughoonaih Per shad (1871) 14 Moo. I.A. 40, where Lord Justice James describes a debt which was payable at a future day as an existing debt capable of attachment, whilst a salary, wages, or money claim accruing due was not so liable to attachment. In other words, the term debt includes both present debt and future debt, as observed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are of two kinds: solvendum in prcesenti and solvendum in futuro. Whether a claim or demand is a debt or not, is in no respect determined by a reference to the time of payment. A sum of money which is certainly and in all events payable is a debt, without regard to the fact whether it be payable now or at a future time. A sum payable upon a contingency, however, is not a debt, or does not become a debt until the contingency has happened." Tested in the light of this principle, there can be no question that the decision of this Court in the case of Nemdhari Roy v. Bissessari Kumari (1898) 2 C.W.N. 591 is erroneous. Some reliance was placed by the learned vakil for the plaintiff upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of....