Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Smt. Bainabai Wankhade, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for a succession certificate in respect of the estate of her deceased son, Baban Wankhade, who died on 16-07-2000. She claimed that the deceased’s widow (respondent no.7) was estranged and that only the applicant and the deceased’s daughters (respondent nos. 8-10) were entitled to the amounts and securities. She amended her application to rely on an unregistered Will dated 05-06-2000 (Exhibit 71) in which the deceased had stated that his entire estate should go to his mother and daughters, and nothing to his wife. The respondents did not specifically deny the Will in their written statement. The trial court disbelieved the Will because the original showed the signature of one attesting witness scored out, while a photocopy (Exhibit 80) had both signatures intact. The trial court granted a succession certificate to the applicant and respondent nos. 7-10 in equal shares. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the District Court, which noted that the Will did not comply with Section 63(c) and that the scribe was not an attesting witness; the appellate court also observed that the grant of a succession certificate does not create exclusive title and does not bar a subsequent suit. Aggrieved, the applicant filed a civil revision application. The High Court framed the question whether the courts below rightly shifted the burden of proving the Will when there was no denial in the written statement. After considering arguments, the Court held that succession proceedings under Sections 372 and 373 of the Act are summary in nature. Strict proof of a Will is not required, and any findings on its genuineness are tentative and do not operate as res judicata. A succession certificate does not decide title; parties remain free to agitate the validity of a Will in a regular suit. Consequently, the Court found no error in the approach of the lower courts and dismissed the revision application, observing that the applicant could prove the Will in the pending civil suits. The judgment emphasised that the burden of proving a Will lies on the propounder, but the absence of a specific denial in a written statement does not automatically prove the document; the court must be satisfied of its due execution. The concurrent findings on the Will were not disturbed, but they would not prejudice any future adjudication.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Grant of Succession Certificate - Burden of Proof of Will - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 372, 373, 387, 63(c) - In an application for succession certificate, the applicant amended pleadings to rely on a Will excluding one legal heir; respondents did not amend their written statement to specifically deny the Will. The trial and appellate courts disbelieved the Will due to discrepancies in attestation and placed the burden on the applicant to prove it. The High Court held that in summary proceedings under the Act, strict burden of proof is not required; findings on the Will are tentative and do not operate as res judicata. The grant of a succession certificate does not confer title, and any finding on the Will’s validity does not bar a subsequent civil suit. Held, the revision application is dismissed; the applicant may agitate the Will’s validity in pending civil proceedings. (Paras 9-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Courts below were justified in placing the burden on the applicant to prove the Will when there was no specific denial in the written statement, and what is the effect of such findings in summary proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, 1925?
Final Decision
The revision application was dismissed. The concurrent orders of the courts below were upheld. The High Court held that strict burden of proof is not required in summary succession proceedings; findings on the Will are tentative and do not operate as res judicata. The grant of a succession certificate does not create exclusive title, and the applicant remains free to prove the Will in pending civil suits.
Law Points
- burden of proving will lies on propounder
- no automatic proof from absence of denial in written statement
- proceedings under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act are summary in nature
- findings on will in such proceedings are tentative and do not operate as res judicata
- grant of succession certificate does not create title
- parties can agitate rights in regular civil suit
- revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (04) 143
Civil Revision Application No.68 of 2015
Shri S. Alaspurkar (Applicant), Mrs. Smita Deshpande (Respondent No.1), Shri Jayant Mokadam (Respondent No.5), Shri S.M. Vaishnav (Respondent Nos. 7 to 10)
Smt. Bainabai wd/o Raghoji Wankhade
1) Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2) Bank of Maharashtra, Branch office at Khaparde Garden, Amravati, 3) Bank of Maharashtra, Branch office at Rukhmini Nagar, Amravati, 4) Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Amravati, 5) The Head Post Master, Amravati, 6) Mahatma Phule Magasvardiya Maha Mandal, Amravati, 7) Smt. Alka Babanrao Wankhade, 8) Mina d/o Babanrao Wankhade, 9) Pratiksha d/o Babanrao Wankhade, 10) Snehal d/o Babanrao Wankhade, 11) Sunil s/o Raghoji Wankhade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application against concurrent orders of trial and appellate courts granting succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Remedy Sought
Applicant sought to set aside the orders granting a share to respondent no.7 (widow of the deceased son) and to enforce the Will dated 05-06-2000 excluding her from the estate.
Filing Reason
Applicant contended that the courts below erroneously placed the burden of proving the Will on her and disbelieved it despite no specific denial in the written statement of contesting respondents.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati) in R.M.J.C. No.97 of 2000 allowed the application, granting equal shares to the applicant and respondents 7-10; the Appellate Court (District Court, Amravati) in Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2009 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial court’s order.
Issues
Whether both the Courts below rightly shifted the burden of proving the Will on the applicant when there was no denial in the written statement to that effect?
What is the effect of findings rendered in summary succession certificate proceedings under Sections 372, 373, and 387 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 on subsequent civil suits?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant: Burden wrongly shifted; the Will was proved by the testimony of an attesting witness and scribe; absence of denial in the written statement must be taken as admission, so the courts should have accepted the Will and excluded respondent no.7.
Respondents: The propounder of a Will must prove its execution under Section 63(c); absence of specific denial does not shift the burden; the courts below correctly appreciated the evidence; the proceedings are summary and any finding does not bar a regular suit; the applicant can agitate her claim in pending civil proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
In summary proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the court is not required to make a conclusive determination on the validity of a Will. Findings on the genuineness of a Will are tentative and do not operate as res judicata. A succession certificate does not confer title and any party may agitate rights in a regular suit. The burden of proving a Will lies on the propounder, and absence of a specific denial in a written statement does not automatically prove the document. The court must satisfy itself as to due execution per Section 63(c), but in summary proceedings, it may grant the certificate on a prima facie view of legal heirship, leaving title disputes for a competent civil suit.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial Court found that the Will deed at Exhibit71 was not free from doubt, particularly because the name and signatures of one of the attesting witnesses was scored out. (Para 3)
the appellate Court has observed that grant of succession certificate would not create any exclusive right and title over the subject matter and that it was not a bar for any of the parties to raise an issue in a subsequent suit about right and title over such properties. (Para 4)
the crucial question that this Court needs to consider and answer is, as noted above, whether the Courts below were justified in placing the burden on the applicant to prove the aforesaid Will when there was no specific denial in written statement/objection by contesting respondent nos. 7 to 10 and what was the effect of the findings rendered by the Courts below, considering the provisions of Sections 372, 373 and 387 of the Act of 1925. (Para 9)
Procedural History
Applicant filed RMJC No.97 of 2000 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for a succession certificate. Trial Court allowed the application and granted equal shares to applicant and respondents 7-10. Applicant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.216 of 2009 before District Court, Amravati. Appellate Court dismissed appeal. Applicant filed Civil Revision Application No.68 of 2015 before High Court. On 03-04-2017, the revision was admitted on the question of law. After hearing, judgment was delivered on 04-04-2018 dismissing the revision.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Succession Act, 1925: 372, 373, 387, 63(c)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 115
