JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18-10-1993 passed by the fearned Additional District Judge, Hissar, under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).
2. The brief facts of the case arc that Ramesh Kumar son of Sham Lal died on 5-11-1990. He was survived by two sons Pankaj and Robind and a daughter Shiwani by his predeceased wife Smt. Shakuntla. From Smt. Shami alias Santosh, whom he married after the death of Smt. Shakuntia, he has a daughter Rekha and a son Ravi. All the children are minor. Sham Lal, paternal grand-father of the minor children of Smt.
Shakuntla, made an application for the grant of succession certificate to the estate of the deceased. Initially, the second wife of Ramesh Kumar and the children from the second wife were not impleaded. It seems that at a later stage on an application made by them, they were impleaded as respondents Nos. 2 to 4. There is no dispute with regard to the inter-se relationship of the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents on the other hand with the deceased Ramesh Kumar. It is also not disputed that the petitioners as well as the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 had equal shares in the estate of the deceased. The only dispute between the parties was whether the succession certificate should be granted in favour of the petitioners, or it should be granted either jointly in favour of the petitioners and respondents Nos. 2 to 4, or the grand-father of the petitioners should be made responsible for distributing both the sets of shares to each of the heirs of the deceased. Relying on Abdul Gafur Mahmadsaheb Manivar v. Jayarabi Ibrahim, AIR 1929 Bom 456, and Neazmui Haque v. Mt. Mouludunnissa, AIR 1934 Patna 304, the Icarned Additional District judge held that the succession certificate should be issued in favour of Sham Lal, grand-father of the petitioners, as well as respondents, subject to his furnishing security undertaking to pay the amount to each heir according to law.
3. Aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been preferred by Smt. Shanti alias Santosh and her two minor children.
4. The contention of Mr. R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, is that there is no bar in the succession certificate being granted in favour of more than one person. He further contends that the property in question consists of such a nature that it can be easily converted into cash and unless the appellanis are given their share they would be exposed to endless litigation in recovering their share of the property or assets. Mr. Jain highlighted the fact that Sham Lal, even though equally related to respondents Nos. 1 to 4, did not initially implead Smt. Shanti and her two children, who got themselves impteaded by making an
application.
5. The contention of Mr. L. N. Verma, on the other hand, is that the law looks with disfavour to the grant of succession certificates in favour of more than one person. The court is required to select the fittest person to receive the succession certificate and he can be bound down by security to adminster the assets as per the titles of various heirs of the deceased. He places reliance on both the authorities which were cited before the learned Additional District Judge.
6. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties the question which arises for consideration is whether a certificate can be given in favour of more than one person jointly, or whether certificates can be issued in favour of different claimants. Though there is no direct provision under the Indian Succession Act dealing with this question, some help is available from the provision of sub-section (4) of Section 373, which reads as under :–
“(4) When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of” interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants.”
7. Unfortunately, the case law available is very scanty. With regard to the above provision, a learned Judge of Rangoon High Court observed as follows :–
“It would not seen that the Act contemplated the issue of joint certificates, but ] do not think that it can be said that if such certificates were issued their issue would he illegal under the wording of this section.” (Vide Daw Ohn Bwint v. Daw Saw May. AIR 1937 Rangoon 336).
8. With respect, I could not agree more. The earliest available case to me is a Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Ram Raj v. Brij Nath, 1913 (Vol. XI) All LJR 717. It was contended thai a joint certificate granted to several persons was illegal. In that
case joint certificate had been granted with the consent of the parties. If the granting of the joint certificate was held to be illegal the consent of the parties would not have made it valid. It was held that no doubt it is inconvenient that a certificate should be granted to , more than one person, but in the case in question the persons to whom the certiticate was granted agreed to its being granted to all of them, the High Court did not interfere. Again, in Sukumar Deb Roy v. Parbati Uala, AIR 194! Cal 663. A Division tench observed that the practice of granting joint certificate had been eondemed and was fraught with obvious inconvenience. It further observed that there may, however, be cases when several applicants have the same degree of interest in the estate of the deceased and there are no circumstances present which would enable the Judge to say that one is better qualified than the other. It was held that under such circumstances the granting of joint certificate is not illegal, particularly if the persons to whom the certificate is granted agree to take it in that form. In my view the above observations completely and squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration.
9. Abdui Gafur Mahmadsaheb Maniyar v. Jayarabi Ibrahim. AIR 1929 Bombay 4-;6, relied upon by the learned trial trial court related to a case against the grant of certifi-cates to different persons in respect of different properties. There was no question in the facts of that case of the grant of a joint certificate to more than one person in respect of the property of the deceased. In Mt. Jagtaran Kuer v. Mt. Gaitri Debi, AIR 1936 Pat 430, in the facts it was held that it was not a case which fell under Sect ion 373(4) avail. In any case in neither of the above authorities was any proposition laid down that in no circumstances can a certificate be issued jointly in favour of various claimants and the certificate car. be issued only in favour of one person.
10. Coming to the facts of this case, it will be seen that the nature of the assets lefl by the deceased fall in the following calegories:–
(i) Bank balances.
(ii) Fixed Deposit Receipts.
(iii) Certificates under Reinvestment Schemes, and
(iv) Indira Vikas Patras.
A mere look at these categories is sufficient to show that the assets can be very easily distributed as per share of each of the heirs. Further, it is to be noted that there is no dispute amongst the various heirs as to their relationship with the deceased. There is also no dispute that the share of each one of them is equal. If the order of the learned trial Court is allowed to stand, it will mean that Sham Lal will be able to realise the entire amount relating to categories (i) to (iii) above and the petitioners herein shall be left to claim their shares from him by resorting to litigation if the same became necessary. Possibility cannot be ruled out of the litigation going on for sometime. As against the above, in the facts and circumstances of the present case when there is no conflict between the interests of the various heirs inter-se the most convenient method would be that the amount is realised by Sham Lal for and on behalf of Pankaj, Robind and Shiwani and Smt. Shanti alias Santosh is given the amount for herself and on behalf of her children Rekha and Ravi the shares of the aforesaid heirs being equal.
11. With regard to Indira Vikas Patras valuing Rs. 68,000/- these have been claimed by Smt. Shanti alias Santosh to exclusively belong to her. It was contended by Mr. Verma that Smt. Shanti had admitted in cross-examination that the said Indira Vikas Patras had been purchased from the amount given to her by the deceased. That being so it was strenuously argued that the amount of the Indira Vikas Patras should also be made available to the petitioners according to their share.
12. After considering the above submissions, it is clarified that with regard to Indira Vikas Patras it will be open to the petitioners to have their remedy in establishing their title by a civil suit. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the order of the learned Additional District Judge is modified. As a result, the succession certificate
with reference to assets (i) to (iii) above shall be issued jointly in favour of Pankaj, Robind and Shiwani as well as Shanti alias Santosh, Rekha and Ravi in equal shares. The shares relating to Pankaj, Robind and Shiwani shall be receivable by Sham Lal on their behalf, whereas the share relating to Smt. Shanti alias Santosh, Rekha and Ravi shall be payable to Smt. Shanti alias Santosh for herself and on behalf of her minor children in equal shares.
13. There will be no order as to costs.
14. Ordcr accordingly.