The Deed Of Gift

The Deed Of Gift

A voluntary transfer of personal property without consideration. A parting by owner with property without pecuniary consideration. A voluntary conveyance of land, or transfer of goods, rom one person to another, made gratuitously, and not upon any consideration of blood or money . Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 defines ”GIFT”.

Oral Gift of an Immoveable Property-
In view of sec. 123 of Transfer of Property Act, a gift of immovable property, which is not registered, is bad in law and cannot pass any title to the donee. Any oral gift of immovable property cannot be made in view of the provisions of sec. 123. Mere delivery of possession without a written instrument cannot confer any title

Recent Case-Law As To Oral Gift Deed:
# Dr. Nathu Lal Vaishi & Anr. . vs G.S.Kamal Advocate & Anr on 12 January, 2010, Delhi High Court
# Sneh Gupta vs Devi Sarup & Ors. on 17 February, 2009, Supreme Court of India
# Ashiq Ali And Ors. vs Smt. Rasheeda Khatoon And Anr.,2005 (2) AWC 1342
# Mt. Akbari Begam vs Rahmat Husain And Ors. , AIR 1933 All 861
# Smt. Sudha Devi And Anr. vs Smt. Shanti Devi,1995 (2) BLJR 1328
# Ziauddin Ahmed vs M.A. Raoof (Died) By Lr., 2002 (5) ALD 830
# Hasan Ali vs Hafiz Mustak Ali, 1986 (2) WLN 1
# Mahboob Sahab vs Syed Ismail & Ors, 1995 AIR 1205
# Chota Uddandu Sahib vs Masthan Bi (Died) And Ors., AIR 1975 AP 271
# Shaik Nurbi vs Pathan Mastanbi And Ors., 2004 (3) ALD 719

What Is Onerous Gift?
‘Onerous gift’ is a gift made subject to certain charges imposed by the donor on the donee.”
-The rule is based on equity, which speaks the person who accepts the benefit of a transaction must also accept the burden of the same.
- It applies equally to Hindus and Mahomedans.

Who is Universal Donee?
Illustration:
A is father. B is son. A makes a gift of the whole property of his estate to B. A directs B to pay his debts and then B is a Universal Donee. Thus, B is liable to pay all debts of donor.

-Section 128 of the Transfer of property Act speaks about ” Universal Donee.
-The foremost condition is the gift should consist of the whole property of the donor.
-In case of a gift pertaining to some portion of the property of donor, such donee is not a Universal donee.

Deference between ” Hiba” and ”Gift”:

HIBA (The Mohammedan law)

GIFT (The English law)

i) As to a valid gift, under Mohammedan law, three essentials conditions are required: (i) declaration of gift by the donor (ii) an acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession of the subject of gift.

i) As to rights in property, under The English law, is classified by a division on the basis of immoveable and moveable property. The essential conditions of a valid gift are (i) The absence of consideration; (ii) the donor; (c) the donee ;(iii) the subject-matter; (iv) the transfer; and the acceptance

Gift to Hindu woman under Hindu Law:
1. Any gift to women under Hindu Law is subject to special rules of construction.
2. Whether such gift passes an absolute estate or limited estate depends upon the terms of the grant.
3. That too, it depends upon the expressions used in the terms of the grant. (Shaliq Ram vs Charanjit)
4. Under partition or in lieu of maintenance, a Hindu woman acquires an absolute estate.
5. Where the property is acquired without pre-existing right such as under a Will, gift, decree or award, her estate depends upon the terms of the instrument.
6. A Hindu , whether belonging to the Mitakshara or Dyabhaga School, can make a gift of his/her separate as also self acquired estate subject to the claims of those entitiled under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
7. No sooner does the donor relinquish his right in the property followed by delivery of possession and acceptance by the donee than a gift is completed.
8. See sections 18 to 22 as wife, widowed daughter-in-law,minor illegitimate children, aged parents and others.
9. A Mitakshara coparcener has no power to make any gift of his coparcenery interest except small gifts based on affection.
10. The right of a wife or widow for maintenance attaches to her status so she can pursue the property even in the hands of a stranger acquiring the same with notice of her claim.

Important Case-Law On ”Gift Deed”:
# Rameshwar Pandey And Anr. vs Suresh Pandey ,2007 (2) BLJR 895
# Giano vs Puran And Ors. ,AIR 2006 P H 160
# Kikabhai Samsuddin vs Collector Of Estate Duty, AIR 1969 Guj 326
# T.R. Srikantaiah Setty vs Balakrishna And Another ,ILR 1999 KAR 2953
# Mst. Noor Jahan Begum vs Muftkhar Dad Khan And Ors. , AIR 1970 All 170
# Brij Raj Singh (Dead) By L. Rs. & Ors vs Sewak Ram & Anr
# HARI SINGH AND ORS. VS KALLU AND ORS. , AIR 1952 All 149
# Virendra Singh And Ors. vs Kashiram (Deceased By L.Rs.) ,AIR 2004 Raj 196
# MOMAN LAL VS ANANDI BAI & ORS,1971 AIR 2177 , Supreme Court of India
# Hutchegowda vs Smt. Jayamma And Anr. ,ILR 1996 KAR 17
# K.S. Mohammad Aslam Khan v. Khalilul Rahman Khan

What are the important conditions of a valid gift Hindu Law ?
i) Relinquishment of one’s proprietory right in the property. Yet it should be without any consideration.
ii) Merely registering the gift deed does not afford to pass the title of the property.
iii) Creation of right of any person must be completed by acceptance.
iv) A gift is totally different from a surrender by a Hindu widow where she does not in fact or in law purport to transfer any interest in the property surrenders.
v) In addition to that in the case of Karunamoyee vs Maya Moyi, it was observed that the widow simply withdraws herself from the estate and the reversioner steps into the inheritance as a matter of law.”
vi) Yet, in the case of Narbada Bai vs Mahadeo, it was held that in case of transfer of the whole estate, the reversioner takes the same subject to the liability for her maintenance. It is thus vividly known that the reversioner is responsible for her debts, if she relinquishes the same.
vii) Where delivery of possession is enough to complete the transaction of a gift, is abrogated under section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the restrictions on power to enter into the transaction of gift under personal law exist without any change.

Recent Case-Law As To Scribe Of Gift Deed:
# Brij Raj Singh (Dead) By L. Rs. & Ors vs Sewak Ram & Anr on 22 April, 1999, Supreme Court of India;
# Giano vs Puran And Ors.,AIR 2006 P H 160;
# Ramjeet Mahto And Ors. vs Baban Mahto And Ors. ,2003 (4) JCR 268 Jhr;
# Rameshwar Singh And Ors. vs Harendra Singh And Ors. on 30 November, 2007,Patna High Court;
# Gurdial Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 16 July, 2009 , Punjab-Haryana High Court;
# Mahant Rattangiri vs Chairman Indian Red Cross Society … on 14 December, 2009, Punjab-Haryana High Court;
# Smt. Takri Devi vs Smt. Rama Dogra And Ors., AIR 1984 HP 11;
# Smt. Chinnamma And Ors. vs The Devanga Sangha And Ors., AIR 1973 Kant 338
# Dhruba Sahu (Dead) And After Him … vs Paramananda Sahu., AIR 1983 Ori 24
# Most. Ram Dular Devi And Ors. vs Shri Satya Narayan Prasad And Ors., 2002 (3) BLJR 1757;

Gift under Mohammedan Law:
1. A hiba (oral gift) is an out-and-out transfer of some determinate thing or an incorporeal right, it is necessary that such thing or right must be in existence and can be transferred immediately.
2. In the case of a gift of usufruct (Ariat) produce (Manqfi) refers to rights which accrue from day to day in future. Such produce or use of a thing becomes property particle by particle as it is brought into being. The manqfi may thus be transferred by the donor during his lifetime by gift or by bequest and be the subject of gift even though they are not in existence at the time of the gift.
3. In view of section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is clear that the rule of Mahommedan Law as to gifts is not affected under the said Act.
4. Generally, This rule of Mohammedan law is unaffected by the provisions of sec. 123, Transfer of property Act and, consequently, a registered instrument is not necessary to validate a gift of immovable property.
5. In the case of Abdul Rahim & Ors. Vs. Sk. Abdul Zabar & Ors. Reported in (2009) 6 SCC 160 held thus: -”15. We may notice the definition of gift as contained in various textbooks. In Mulla’s Principles of Mohammadan Law the “hiba” is defined as a transfer of property made immediately without any exchange by one person to another and accepted by or on behalf of later (sic latter). A.A.A. Fyzee in his Outlines of Muhammadan Law defined “gift” in the following terms: “A MAN may lawfully make a gift of his property to another during his lifetime; or he may give it away to someone after his death by will. The first is called a disposition inter vivos; the second, a testamentary disposition. Muhammadan law permits both kinds of transfers; but while a disposition inter vivos is unfettered as to quantum, a testamentary disposition is limited to one-third of the net estate. Muhammadan law allows a man to give away the whole of his property during his lifetime, but only one-third of it can be bequeathed by will.”…”
6. In any gift by a Mohammedan, three essential requirements have to be complied with for a valid gift : (i) Declaration of the gift by the donor. (ii) Acceptance of the gift expressed or implied by or on behalf of the donee. (iii) Delivery of such possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee. (Para 20). it was further observed that ” since the deed itself makes it clear that upto the date of the execution of this deed, the executant was in possession, and there can be no oral gift without possession. Therefore, this document cannot be constituted to be a memorandum of gift but it is a gift deed itself.” (para 21).
7. It was held in the case of ”Ashiq Ali And Ors. Vs Smt. Rasheeda Khatoon And Anr[9] ”, that ” in view of the provision under Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, the provision of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act shall not affect the validity of the gift under any rule of Mohammedan Law, so if an oral gift is there and the aforesaid three requirements are fulfilled, it cannot be ignored on the ground that a gift made by a Mohammedan is not in accordance with Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act but if a gift deed is executed, it is not exempt from registration in accordance with the provision under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act does not exempt the written gift deed executed by a Mohammedan.
8. Registration of a gift deed cannot cure a defect, as to condition of delivery of possession.
9. Mohammedan law does not dispense with the necessity for acceptance of the gift even in cases where the donees are minors.
10. The fundamental rule of Mohammedan law as to gifts is that “the donor should divest himself completely of all ownership and dominion over the subject of the gift.
11. There must be a delivery of such possession as the subject of the gift is susceptible of what delivery the property is capable of and whether such delivery as the property is capable of has been given would depend upon the particular facts in each case.
12. As to delivery of possession is concerned, irrespective of actual or constructive, the ultimate test of the delivery of possession is to see whether the donor or donee reaps the benefit.

Revocation of gift deed under Mohammedan Law:
under the circumstances mentioned infra, A Mohammedan can revoke a gift even after delivery of possession:
i) When the gift is made by a husband to his wife or by a wife to her husband;
ii) when the donee is related to the donor within the prohibited degrees;
iii) when the gift is Sadaka (i.e. made to a charity or for any religious
purpose).
iv) when the donee is dead;
v) when the thing given has passed out of the donee’s possession
by sale, gift or otherwise;
vi) when the thing given is lost or destroyed;
vii) when the thing given has increased in value, whatever be the cause of the increase;
viii) when the thing given is so changed that it cannot be identified, as when wheat is converted into flour by grinding; and
ix) when the donor has received something in exchange for the gift
Except in those cases, a gift may be revoked at the mere will of the donor, whether he has or has not reserved to himself the power to revoke it, but the revocation must be by a decree of court.

Is Registration Mandatory ?
Under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift of property, which is not registered, is bad in law and cannot confer title to the donee. Gift Deed should be stamped and registered as required. Mere delivering possession without a written instrument cannot confer any title. A deed cannot be dispensed with even for a property of small value. Attestation by two witnesses is required. This provision excludes every other mode of transfer and even if the intended donee is put in possession, a gift of property is invalid without a registered instrument. A gift made by a Mohammedan is not in accordance with Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act but if a gift deed is executed, it is not exempt from registration in accordance with the provision under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act does not exempt the written gift deed executed by a Mohammedan.

Recent Case-Law As To Registration Of Gift Deed:
# Parbati vs Baijnath Pathak And Anr. 14 Ind Cas 61
# Vasudev Ramchandra Shelat vs Pranlal Jayanand Thakar And Ors ,1974 AIR 1728
# Firm Mukand Lal Veer Kumar & Anr vs Sri Purushottam Singh & OrS,1968 AIR 1182
# Udaya Naik vs Lokanath Naik And Ors. ,AIR 1954 Ori 195
# Ashiq Ali And Ors. vs Smt. Rasheeda Khatoon And Anr. ,2005 (2) AWC 1342
# Smt. Sanjukta Ray vs Bimelendu Mohanty And Ors. , AIR 1997 Ori 131
# Chennupati Venkatasubbamma vs Nelluri Narayanaswami ,AIR 1954 Mad 215
# Bhagabat Basudev And Ors. vs Api Bewa And Ors. ,AIR 1974 Ori 180
# Vettikuti Naydamma (Died) And … vs Mupparaju Madhusudhana Rao And ,1996 (2) ALT 185
# Fateh Ali (Died) Per Lrs. And Ors. vs M.A. Aleem And Anr. ,2003 (6) ALD 611.

Recent Case-Lae Regarding ”Stamp Duty On Gift Deed”:
# Jwala Prasad vs State Of U.P. And Ors. , 2005 (2) AWC 2271
# Hemnath By His L.Rs. And Ors. vs Jalam Singh , 1989 (2) WLN 418
# Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008 , Kerala High Court
# Ms Mayawati vs Dy Commissioner Of Income-Tax , (2008) 113 TTJ Delhi 178
# Ramchandra Vishwanath Ghaisas … vs The State Of Maharashtra ,AIR 1981 Bom 164
# Maha Vidyalaya (Degree College), … vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 2010, Allahabad High Court
# Hemnath vs Jalam Singh ,1 (1990) WLN Rev 590
# Dulal Chandra Chatterjee And Ors. vs Moni Mohan Mukherjee And Ors. ,2005 (2) CHN 563
# Gift-Tax Officer vs Rajmata Shanta Devi P. Gaekwad ,2001 76 ITD 299 Ahd
# Glitter Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs Mr. Sanjay Grover And Ors. , 2003 VIAD Delhi 217

Important Case-Lae As To ”Attestation Of Gift Deed”:
1. Brij Raj Singh (Dead) By L. Rs. & Ors vs Sewak Ram & Anr on 22 April, 1999, Supreme Court of India
2. T.R. Srikantaiah Setty vs Balakrishna And Another ,ILR 1999 KAR 2953
3. Balbhadar Singh vs Lakshmi Bai , AIR 1930 All 669
4. Hari Singh And Ors. vs Kallu And Ors. , AIR 1952 All 149
5. Bishwanath Raut And Ors. vs Babu Ram Ratan Singh And Ors. ,AIR 1957 Pat 485
6. Alapati Nagamma vs Alapati Venkataramayya And Ors. ,(1935) 68 MLJ 191
7. Balappa Tippanna vs Asangappa Mallappa And Anr. , AIR 1960 Kant 234
8. S. Sundaram And Anr. vs R. Damodaraswami And Anr. ,(1986) 1 MLJ 203
9. Har Prasad vs Mst. Ram Devi ,AIR 1964 All 64
10. K. Laxmanan vs Thekkayil Padmini & Ors. on 3 December, 2008 , Supreme Court of India

Revocation Of A Gift:
Section 126 of the Transfer of Property provides for conditions where a gift can be revoked. the following are essential ingredients for revocation of gift:
i) there must be an agreement between the donor and donee that the gift shall be suspended or revoked on the happening of a specified event;
ii) such event must be one which does not depend upon the will of the donor;
iii) the condition as to the suspend or revocation should be agreed to by the donee at the time of accepting the gift. And,
iv) there must exist a ground , except want or failure of consideration, on which a contract may be rescinded.
v) the condition should not be illegal, or immoral and should not be repugnant to the estate created under the gift.
vi) Section 126 is controlled by sec. 10. As such, a clause in the gift deed completely prohibiting alienation is void in view of the provisions contained in sec. 10.
vii) A gift, which was not based on fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation nor was an onerous one, cannot be cancelled unilaterally. Such a gift deed can be cancelled only by resorting to legal remedy in a competent court of law.

Conclusion:
Despite the concept of expectation of reciprocity, a gift is known to be free. Any person who is the legal owner of a property can alone make a gift of his property. Basically, a gift is the transfer of something without consideration. In other words, it can be said that a voluntary transfer of a property in consideration of love and affection to person is known as ”GIFT”. It is thus vividly known that ” the chief characteristic of a gift is that it is a transfer without any consideration.”
-x-
# Black’s Law Dictionary defines ”GIFT”
“Gift” is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donor, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.
# (1930) 57 IA 282
# See section 14 (1) and (2) of the The Hindu Succession Act (Act XXX OF 1956)
# Radha bai vs Gopal, AIR 1944 Bom 50
# AIR 1948 Cal. page 84
# Smt.Ajambi (Dead) By Lr. vs Roshanbi And Others on 30 August, 2010
# 2005 (2) AWC 1342, Ashiq Ali And Ors. Vs Smt. Rasheeda Khatoon And Anr.
# 2005 (2) AWC 1342,

Whether Section 324 Of Ipc Is Bailable Or Non-Bailable

Whether Section 324 Of Ipc Is Bailable Or Non-Bailable

I deem that it is very interesting to discuss as to section 324 of Indian Penal Code,1860 is now bailable offence or non-balibale offence. If you go through Section 42 sub-section (f)(iii) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (No. 25 of 2005) which says section 324 of Indian Penal Code,1860 is non-bailable offence. Yet, many people ignores that this Amendment was followed by a Notification dated 21st June, 2006 in the Gazette of India. According to this notification, section 324 of Indian Penal Code,1860 is not non-bailable offence. Because of ignorance of this notification, in some of places, the persons ,who arrested for the offence under section 324 of IPC, could not get bail immediately, despite it is still bailable offence.

- At this juncture, I deem that it is appropriate to refer, to remember the importance of granting bail, the land mark ruling delivered by the Hon’ble Justice Krishnaiyer, V.R. In ” STATE OF RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR Vs BALCHAND @ BALIAY”,1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535; HELD : The basic rule is bail, not jail, except-where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. When considering the question of bail, the gravity of the offence involved and the heinousness of the crime which are likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice must weigh with the court. In the instant case the circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail on monetary suretyship at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the abscondence or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station once every fortnight. He was on bail throughout the trial but was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court. He is not it desperate character or an unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place on him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court.

Act 5 of 2009:
From 31st December, 2009 onwards, Section 324 of IPC is no compaundable. Yet, it is still bailable offence as per the Notification dated 21st June, 2006 inasmuch as Section 42(f)(iii) of CrPC Amendment Act, 2005 was excluded.

What Section 42 sub-section (f)(iii) of Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (No. 25 of 2005) says :
It says as infra:
42. Amendment of the First Schedule.-In the First Schedule to the principal Act, under the heading “I.-OFFENCES UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE”,-
…………
(f) in the 5th column, in the entries relating to-
……..
(iii) section 324, for the word “Ditto”, the word “Non-bailable” shall be substituted;
………….
This Amendment was followed by a Notification dated 21st June, 2006 in the Gazette of India :

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Notification
New Delhi, the 21st June, 2006

S. O. 923(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (No. 25 of 2005), the Central Government hereby appoints the 23rd June, 2006, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act, except the provisions of Sections 16, 25, 28(a), 28(b), 38, 42(a), 42(b) 42(f) (iii) and (iv) and 44(a), shall come into force.

[F. No. 2/5/90-Judl Cell (Vol VIII)]
Dr. P. K. SETH, Jt. Secy.

The Notification vividly says that Section 42(f)(iii) of Cr.P.C Amendment Act, 2005 is excluded and therefore not yet enforced. Which means that Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) continues to be a bailable offence but is not non-bailable.

Conclusion:
Mulling over all these facts and keeping in view of the above notification, it is vividly known that section 324 of IPC is bailable offence as it was earlier but is not non-bailable. Therefore, the newly recruited judicial officers should aware of the same.

Succession Certificate

Succession Certificate

A succession certificate, strictly speaking, does not effect adjudication of title of the deceased far less than that of the holder as regards the debts and securities covered thereunder. Yet, simply to afford protection to the parties paying the debts. The grant of succession certificate is conclusive against the debtor. A succession certificate is effect throughout the whole India as per section 380 of The Indian Succession Act,1925 (herein after referred as the Act). According to sections 381 and 386 of the Act, a succession certificate is conclusive as against the person/persons liable to whom full indemnity is afforded (make available) for payments made. But, despite the succession certificate is only conclusive of the representative title of the holder thereof as against the debtors, a suit of declaration will not lie that the holder of the certificate is not the legal representative of the deceased.

What does the word ” Succession” mean?
” The law and procedures under which beneficiaries become entitled to property under a testator’s will or on intestacy.”

Grant of Succession Certificate- Certain Restrictions:
Under the following circumstances, no succession certificate can be granted.
i) under section 370 (1) of the Act, as to any debt or security to which a right is required to be established by probate or letters of administration;
ii) that too, if sections 212 of the Act applies;
iii) if section 213 of the Act applies;
iv) that is to say that where law requires probates or letters of administration as mandatory to establish right to property as in the cases of Parsis, Jews, East Indians, Europeans and Americans.
v) Provided that nothing will prevent as to granting a succession certificate to any person entitle to the effects of a deceased Indian Christian or any part thereto pertaining to any debt or security, that the right can be established by letters of administration.
What does the word ”SECURITY” mean under the purview of Succession Certificate?
A fortiori, it is very essential to know the word ” Security” means, any bond, debenture, promissory note, any stock or debenture of , or share in , a company , any debenture or other security for money issued by or on behalf of a local authority, that too, any other security which the Governor -General in Council may declare to be security for the purpose of succession certificate, any annuity charged by Act of Parliament on the revenues of India etc.

How to apply for ”Succession Certificate”?:
i) An application should be made to The District Judge under section 372 of the Act;
ii) the petitioner must sign and verify the petition;
iii) the residences of the relatives and family of the deceased must be mentioned;
iv) In case of The Hindu Succession Act (Act XXX OF 1956), the names of the heirs must be mentioned in the petition;
v) the right of the petitioner should be mentioned;
vi) Either Ordinary residence of the deceased, at the time of death, or the property of the deceased should be within the limits of the Jurisdiction of the Court concerned;
vii) the debts and securities as to which the succession certificate is applied for should be mentioned;
viii) the absence of any impediment u/sec. Sub section (1) of Section 370 of the Act or any other provisions of the Act or any other enactments to the grant of succession certificate or to the validity of it in case of it was granted, must be mentioned.

Effect of Succession Certificate:
To know the effect of succession certificate, it is apt to see section 381 of the Act. The succession certificate simply affords protection to the parties paying debts. It is thus cleat that there is absolutely no adjudication of title of the deceased.

Case-Law:
In the case of Muthia vs Ramnatham, 1918 MWN 242, it was held that the grant of certificate gives to the grantee a title to recover the debt due to the deceased, and payment to the grantee is a good discharge of the debt.” In the case of Srinivasa vs Gopalan, , it was held that ” The question whether the debt belonged to the deceased is not a matter to be decided on an application for a succession Certificate.” In the case of Paramananda Chary vs Veerappan, AIR 1928 Madras 213: 82 IC 604, it was held that ”The grant of succession certificate is conclusive against the debtor. Even if another person turns out to be the heir of the deceased, it does not follow that the certificate is invalid.” In the case of Ganga Prasad vs Saudan , it was observed that section 381 of the Act protects the debtors and affords full indemnity to the persons liable to pay the debts and in respect of the securities covered by hte certificate as persons having the same paid in ”good faith”.

No Addition Yet Extension of Succession Certificate:
Section 376 of the Act provides that the succession certificate can be extended in respect of any debt or security not originally specified therein and if such extension is ordered, it shall have the same effect as if the debt or security to which the succession certificate is extended had been originally specified. The District Judge can extend a succession certificate only on the application of the holder of a succession certificate and not of any other person.

Relevant Case-Law As To Succession Certificate:
1. Paramananda chary V. Veerappan
2. Meebatcgu V. Ananthanarayana 26 Mad 224 (229);
3. Sithambaravadiva Vs. Thirupalkadanaha AIR 1928 Mad. 56 (57)
4. Shev Shetty V. Jamna Bai AIR 1956 Hyd. 59.
5. Oriential G.S. Life Assurance V. Vanteddu 35 Mad 162 (167)
6. Anjanaiah Vs. Nagappa AIR 1967 AP 61
7. Muthia V. Ramanatham 1981 M/wN 242l 43 I/c 972 (973) Sharafat V. Khurshed 49 IC 958.
8. Peari Lal Vs, Jahbba Lal AIR 1925 All 66 (67): 82 IC 604
9. Mehr Chand V. Syed Muhammad 99 PR 1899
10. Sahib Ram V. Muhammad 29 PR 1899;
11. Charusila V. Jyotish 33 IC 157 (159)
12. Keshavji Lakhamshey V. Janji Deoji AIR 1950 Kut. 49
13. Mohammed Abdul Vs. Sarifan 16 CWN 231 (233L 12 IC 593L 15 CLJ 384
14. Ram Saran V. Goppu 71 PWR 1916: 33 IC 603 (604)
15. Jigri Begum Vs. Syed Ali 5 CWN 494 (497)
16. Mohabir Vs. Lala Baldeo 1 IC 205 (206)
17. Bai Jasgu Vs, Parbhu 28 Bom 119 (123)
18. Golam Khalik V. Tasaddak 28 CLJ 299: 890 (892)
19. S.C. Guha Vs. J.C. Das AIR 1970 Assam 102
20. Rupan V. Bhaelu 36 All 423 (424): 25 IC. 320
21. Ganpaya V. Krishnappa 26 Bom LR. 491: 80 IC 422: AIR. 1924 Bom 394, 270
22. Ramji V. Firm Mangal Sen AIR 1954 Pepsu 66
23. Ramu singh Vs. Aghori Singh AIR 1938 Pat. 68.
24. Assam Bengal Rly. Co. V. Atul Chandra AIR 1937 Cal.314
25. Shyam Sundari V. Sarti Devi AIR 1962 Pat 220.
26. Kuchu Iyer V. Vengu Ammal AIR 1926 Mad 407 (408) following Parshotam Vs. Ranchod 8 BHCR AC 152 (FB)
27. Kasumari V. Makku AIR 1927 All 227 (228) ; following Fateh Chand V. Md. Baksh 16 All 259 (266) (FB)
28. Manasing V. Amad Kunchi 17 Mad 14 (16)
29. Annappurnabai V. Lakshman 19 Bom 145 (148)
30. Biro Devi V. Sardar Singh 1989 PLJR 1028
31. P.A.Biju V. Director 1989 (2) KLJ 247.
32. Brij Bihari V. Jijai Shankar AIR 1991 All 236.
33. Venkateswarlu V. Brahamaravulu 25 Mad 634 (635)
34. Radha Raman V. Gopal 27 CWN 947 (distinguishing 25 Mad 634)
35. Shitab Debi Vs. Debi Prasad 16 All 21 (22)
36. Sharifunnisa V. Masum Ali, Ibid.
37. AIR 1950 Cal 578: 85 CLJ 126
38. Bindo V. Radhe Lal 42 All 512 (513): 56 IC 181
39. Sharifunnissa V. Masum Ali 42 All 347 (350): 56 IC 380
40. Mancharam V. Kalidas 19 Bom 821 (825)
41. Ahamad Ebrahim V. Govt. of Bombay ILR (1943) Bom 25: 44 Bom LR 912; AIR 1943 Bom 50, relied on in Mulukh Raj V. Raj Narain AIR 1957 Cal 687; 61 CWN 621,
42. Singeshwar Prasad V. Suraj Bai AIR 1952 Pat . 142.
43. Sonua Kumhar Vs. Chamtu Pahan AIR 1953 Pat 134.
44. Kanhaiya V. Kanhaiya Lal 46 All 372 (374): 22 ALJ 345: AIR 1924 All 376: 79 IC 363.
45. Nanhu V. Gulabo 26 All 172(175) (dissenting from 20 Mad 442: 5 MLJ 28 and 25 Cal 320); Kunjunni V. Kongathi 7 MLT 246: 1910 MWN 265L 6 IC 599; Bai Devkore V. Lalchand 19 Bom 790 (793); DilajV. Jagdat 5 OC 213 (215) (following 19 Mad 1999):Bhagwani V. Manni Lal 13 All 214; In re Paddo Sundari 3 All 304; Jasoda V. Sujanmal 63 IC 846 (Nag).
46. Ramareddi V. Papi Reddi 19 Mad 199 (200)
47. Radha Rani V. Brindaban 25 Cal 320 (321) (dissenting from 13 All; 214); Ariya V. Thangammal 20 Mad 442; Biri V. Barkhurdar 4 PLR 1908: 139 PR 1908.
48. Rai Nandkore V. Magan Lal 36 Bom 272 (273): 13 Bom LR 1208: 12 IC 921.
49. Rangubai V. Abaji 19 Bom 399; Jevermal V. Nazir 18 Bom 748
50. Gurvaraya V.Chandra Sekhar 31 Mad 362.
51. Ram Ghulam V. Shib Din 1892 AWN 35,
52. Banbee Madhab V. Nilambar 7 WR 376
53. Rajmohinee V. Dinobando 17 WR 566.
54. Huran V. Hingan 34 All 148 (149) ; 12 IC 926 : 8 ALJ 1300.
55. Sukhia V. Secretary of State 19 CWN 551 (552) l
56. Nagavur V. Hau Ran 2 Kag KH 312;
57. Basti Begam V Saulat 16 OC 197: 21 IC 388:
58. Jagam Das V. Mangal Das 41 IC 640 ;
59. Bhanwar Bai V. Balmukund AIR 1960 Raj 9.
60. Tikaya V. Launga 124 PR 1890.

Conclusion:
I hope that this information given supra is helpful to judicial officers, lawyers, law students and others who seek information as to ” Succession Certificate.
-x-
# Oxford Dictionary of Law, Third Edition, page388
# 20 MLJ 865
# AIR 1952 A 80