Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.
Key Takeaways
- Succession Certificate (relating to the deceased plaintiff) is required to get a decree for payment of ‘debt’, so also to execute such a decree.
- The surviving decree holder could execute decree without a Succession Certificate (relating to the co-plaintiff).
- It is not needed for partition, easement, rent – cases.
- Succession Certificate will Not to establish Title.
- It is not a condition precedent for impleadment.
- It is not needed if EP had been filed by the DH himself.
- ‘Legal heirship certificate’ is issued by revenue officers.
- It is not referred to in Indian Succession Act
- It can be used for certain limited and specified purposes only.
- Various States promulgated Rules or GOs for issuing the same.
Introduction
The law requires production of Succession Certificate by the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff, to get a decree for payment of ‘debt’ (to be paid) by a defendant, so also to execute such a decree.
Succession Certificate – Relevant Provision of Law
Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is the relevant provision of law.
This provision applies to both continuation of trial for, and execution of, a decree:
- 1. for ‘payment of debt’ (to be paid) by the defendant; and
- 2. in an execution proceeding initiated by the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff/decree-holder.
This provision will not apply to:
- 1. Any decree other than that for ‘payment of debt’ – such as: for partition, easement, rent.
- 2. Appeal.
- 3. Execution of an appellate decree, even if the death of the plaintiff was after the decree by the trial court.
- 4. Decree holder dies after deposit of the entire decree debt by the judgment debtors.
- 5. Execution petition had been filed by the decree-holder himself.
- 6. Surviving decree holder could execute decree on his own behalf and on behalf of the legal representative of the deceased.
- 7. Adjudication of the title of the deceased.
Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act reads as under:
- 214. Proof of representative title a condition precedent to recovery through the Courts of debts from debtors of deceased persons:
- (1) No Court shall—
- (a) pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof, or
- (b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, by the person so claiming of—
- (i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased, or
- (ii) a certificate granted under S.31 or S.32 of the Administrator General’s Act, 1913 (3 of 1913) and having the debt mentioned therein, or
- (iii) a succession certificate granted under Part X and having the debt specified therein, or
- (iv) a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889 (7 of 1889) or
- (v) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No.VIII of 1827, and, if granted after the first day of May, 1889, having the debt specified therein.
- (2) The word “debt” in sub-section (1) includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes.”
Decisive Judgments – Succession Certificate is Not Needed
Following cases it is held that the Succession certificate contemplated in Sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is needed only in respect of ‘debts’ or ‘securities’, and not required in a suit for partition, compensation, maintenance etc:
- Vishalakshi v. Bank of India, 2006 (2) KLT 488 – in respect of immovable property
- Khader Bee v. Mohammad Vazir, 2001 (2) ALT 513 – for execution of the decree in the suit for partition.
- Rukhsana v. Nazrunnisa , 2000 (9) SCC 240 – compensation on account of the death of the deceased.
- Rama Seshagiri Rao vs. N. Kamalakumari – AIR 1982 AP 107 – for executing the decree for maintenance and for execution of a decree for costs.
- Resilikutty Chacko v. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 Ker. 56 – claimant in compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. (Contra view in Sangappa Mallappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bagalkot, AIR 2003 Kar. 142; Mallappa v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, ILR 1999 Kant 4411)
- Sabnam v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 ACJ 2501 (Rajasthan High Court) – compensation in motor accident cases.
Object of a Succn. Certificate – Facilitate collection of debts; Not to establish Title
The Supreme Court explained the object in Shri Banarsi Dass v. Mrs. Teeku Dutta, 2005(4) SCC 449, as under:
- “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 deceased persons. 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.
- Such a certificate does not give any general power of administration on the estate of the deceased. The grant of a certificate does not establish title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased.
- A Succession Certificate is intended as noted above 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 under the Act, or is compelled by the decree of a Court to pay it to the person, he is lawfully discharged.
- The grant of a certificate does not establish a title of the grantee as the heir of the deceased, but only furnishes him with authority to collect his debts and allows the debtors to make payments to him without incurring any risk. In order to succeed in the succession application the applicant has to adduce cogent and credible evidence in support of the application. The respondents, if they so chooses, can also adduce evidence to oppose grant of succession certificate.”
Surviving Decree Holder Can Execute Decree on His Own Behalf
In M.C. Sreedharan v. Pattieri Kumaran, AIR 1981 Ker 51, it is held that in a case involving ‘debt’ as contemplated under Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act, when one of the decree holders had been died, the surviving decree holder could execute decree on his own behalf and on behalf of the legal representative of the deceased decree holder and in such case, succession certificate as per Section 214(1)(b) of the Succession Act was not necessary.
Succession Certificate is not condition precedent
Elsy v. State of Kerala, 2008 (1) KHC 615 : 2008 (1) KLT 904 it is held that the restriction in Sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act being “not to proceed with the application”, it is not a condition precedent to file a Succession Certificate along with the application for impleadment.
It was also held in this case that after deposit of the entire decree debt by the judgment debtors, if the decree holder dies, the legal-heirs of the decree holder need not produce succession certificate.
Succession certificate needed in succession; not in survivorship in a Joint Hindu Family
It is held in Sreeram Rangaiah v. Gajula Krisnaiah, 2006 (1) ALT 186, that the Succession certificate would be necessary only in case of succession but not in a case of survivorship (birth-right) in a Joint Hindu (also:K. Laxminarayan v V. Gopalaswami, AIR 1963 AP 438; L.I.C. Of India v. T. Tirupathayya, AIR 1963 AP 353; Radhamma v. H.N. Muddukrishna, AIR 2019 SC 643; Devireddy Suryanarayana Reddy v. Kusum Kasturamma, 2015 (5) ALT 802; B. Chandrakala v. A. Anuradha, 2015 (5) ALT 383.
Where Execution petition is already filed by the decree-holder
In Akula Mabukhan vs Rajamma, AIR 1963 AP 69 the execution petition had been filed by the decree-holder himself. It was held that for continuing the execution petition the legal representative need not obtain a succession certificate. (Also in:Akula Rangappa v. Narayana Swamy, AIR 1988 AP 314;Ramanatha Reddy v. K.V. Kuppuswami Mudaliar, AIR 1971 Mad 419)
Cannot be Waived by the parties
In Abdul v. Shamseali, AIR 1942 Bom 285 , the Bombay High Court held that the necessity for obtaining a succession certificate cannot be waived by the parties.
No limitation
In Vishalakshi v. Bank of India, AIR 2006 Ker 255, it is held as under:
- “As in the case of probate or letters of administration [vide Francis v. Antony -1991 (1) KLT 62] there is no limitation for approaching the court for the grant of a Succession Certificate. (See Janaki v. Kesavalu – ILR 8 Madras 207)”
An Overview
It is high time to change the law in this subject. It might have been justifiable in the past – for the protection from bogus claims. But, now-a-days the directions in Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is redundant and superfluous. It is clear from the fact that such a certificate is not needed when an appeal is filed; or, when a legal hair or legal representative is impleaded in trial.
Legal Heirship Certificate
Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not speak about ‘legal heirship certificate’. It is issued by revenue officers such as Tahsildars, Revenue Divisional Officers. A legal heirship certificate can be used for certain limited purposes only, such as:
- Property Transfer
- Transfer of the electricity connection
- House tax transfer
- Telephone connection transfer
- To change bank account to a family member
- Insurance claims
- Retirement benefit claims
- Pension claims
- Provident fund claims
- Gratuity claim.
Such certificates are not conclusive when disputes arise as to lawful legal heirs of a deceased person or as to the validity of the title of the deceased. When such disputes arise, the revenue authorities have to direct the claimants to approach proper civil court.
Rules, Guidelines and Government Orders
Various States in India have promulgated particular Rules and/or Government Orders with respect to issuance of Legal Heir (Heirship) Certificates – e.g. Kerala Information Technology (Electronic Delivery of Services) Rules, 2010; Kerala Village Manual and G.O. (MS) No. 359/67/RD dated 10.08.1967 ; TN Revenue Department G.O. (Ms) No. 2906, dated 4.11.1981 read with Government Letter No. 1534, dated 28.11.1991; The Revenue Manual issued by the CRA on 14.9.2001 Circular Instructions No. 11/2017, RA 5(3)/180/2017, dated 9.8.2017; Odisha Miscellaneous Certificate Rules, 1984.
- See: Premalatha Subhash v. State of Kerala, 2021 5 Ker HC 736: 2021 4 Ker LJ 612;
- Vishalakshi v. Bank of India, AIR 2006 Ker 255;
- Mymoonath v. District Officer, State Life Insurance District Office, Thrissur, AIR 2021 Ker 83;
- M. V. Suprabha v. Tahsildhar, Taluk Office, Velachery Taluk, Tharamani, 23 Sep 2021 (Madras);
- V. Devan v. Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Chennai, 22 Dec 2020;
- J. Babu v. Tahsildar, Tharangampadi Taluk, Nagapattinam, 2021-3 CTC 79.
End Notes
Section 370 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925
370. Restriction on grant of certificates under this Part.—
- (1) A succession certificate (hereinafter in this Part referred to as a certificate) shall not be granted under this Part with respect to any debt or security to which a right is required by section 212 or section 213 to be established by letters of administration or probate: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prevent the grant of a certificate to any person claiming to be entitled to the effects of a deceased Indian Christian, or to any part thereof, with respect to any debt or security, by reason that a right thereto can be established by letters of administration under this Act.
- (2) For the purposes of this Part, “security” means—
- (a) any promissory note, debenture, stock or other security of the Central Government or of a State Government;
- (b) any bond, debenture, or annuity charged by Act of Parliament 1[of the United Kingdom] on the revenues of India;
- (c) any stock or debenture of, or share in, a company or other incorporated institution;
- (d) any debenture or other security for money issued by, or on behalf of, a local authority;
- (e) any other security which the 2[State Government] may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a security for the purposes of this Part.
Section 372 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925
- 372. Application for certificate. —
- (1) Application for such a certificate shall be made to the District Judge by a petition signed and verified by or on behalf of the applicant in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the signing and verification of a plaint by or on behalf of a plaintiff, and setting forth the following particulars, namely:—
- (a) the time of the death of the deceased;
- (b) the ordinary residence of the deceased at the time of his death and, if such residence was not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Judge to whom the application is made, then the property of the deceased within those limits;
- (c) the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residences;(d) the right in which the petitioner claims;
- (e) the absence of any impediment under section 370 or under any other provision of this Act or any other enactment, to the grant of the certificate or to the validity thereof if it were granted; and
- (f) the debts and securities in respect of which the certificate is applied for.
- (2) If the petition contains any averment which the person verifying it knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true, that person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 198 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).
- (3) Application for such a certificate may be made in respect of any debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof.
- Note: S.388 of the Act confers power on the State government to invest any inferior court with the power to exercise the functions of a District Judge (See: Vishalakshi v. Bank of India, AIR 2006 Ker 255).
Read in this Cluster:
Civil Procedure Code
- Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
- Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
- Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
- Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
- Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
- Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
- Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
- Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
- Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
- Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
- Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
- Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
Power of attorney
- No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
- Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
Title, ownership and Possession
- POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
- Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
- Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
- When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
- Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
Principles and Procedure
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
- Declaration and Injunction
- Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
- Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
- Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
- Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
- Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
- Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
- Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
- Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
- Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
- Admission, Relevancy and Proof
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Proof and Truth of Documents
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting
- Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
- Vested interest and Contingent Interest
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
- Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
- ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities will not Confer ‘Title’
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
- Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
- Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
Evidence Act – General
- Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
- How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
- Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
- Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
- Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
- Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
- Sec. 65B
- Sections 65A & 65B, Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao: in Nutshell
- Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
- Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
- ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
- Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
- Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
- Law on Documents
- Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as a ‘Public Documents’?
- Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
- Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
- Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
- Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
- Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents
- Proof and Truth of Documents
- Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting
- Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
Contract Act
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
- Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
- Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
Easement
- What is Easement?
- Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
- What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit”?
- Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
- Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity
- Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
- Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
- Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
- ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
Stamp Act
- Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
- Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
Will
- Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues
- Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
- Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
- Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
- Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
- Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
- Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
- Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
- Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
- CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
- Religious issues
- Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
- Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
- ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
- No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
- Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
- Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
- Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
- SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
- Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict
Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India
- General
- Property & Trust
- Juristic Personality
- Suits
- Amendment and Dissolution
- Rights and Management
- Election
- State Actions
Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India
- General Principles
- Dedication and Vesting
- Trustees and Management
- Breach of Trust
- Suits by or against Trusts
- Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
- Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
- Constitutional Principles
- Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
- General
Saji Koduvath Associates 
Publication in gazette is a pre- condition for issuing Legal Heirship Certificate. Revenue authorities are often misguided by providing false address of deceased. Civil Courts alone be given jurisdiction to grant these declaratory reliefs.
LikeLike