C.K. PRAHALADA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 852 · Decided: 06-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 852 
C.K. PRAHALADA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3325 of 2008) 
MAY 6, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Discretionary 
iurisdiction - Exercise of - Succession Certificate in favour of 
c appellant's father on death of his brother - Suit by appellant's 
father seeking direction to hospital Authorities to hand over 
the articles removed from the body of the brother to them -
Decreed exparte - Execution petition after 6 years - Appeal 
by State - Also application for condonation of delay of 2487 
days - Application as also appeal allowed by High Court and 
D matter remitted to trial court - On appeal, held: Succession 
certificate is granted for limited purpose - By obtaining it, 
person does not become owner of the property - High Court 
rightly held that wife of deceased was a necessary party - On 
her death during pendency of proceedings for grant of 
E succession certificate, her heirs and legal representatives 
should have been impleaded as parties - More so, delay in 
filing appeal would not have been condoned - However, High 
Court allowed the first appeal - Hence, order of High Court 
should not be interfered with - Adopted son of deceased to 
F be impleaded as party in suit. 
Appellant's uncle was admitted to the hospital. 
Appellant's father removed all articles from his brother's 
body. Appellant's uncle expired. The hospital 
Superintendent insisted the appellant's father to deliver 
G the articles kept by him so as to deliver the same to the 
persons entitled therefor, before handing over the dead 
body to them. The articles were handed over to the 
hospital authorities. Thereafter, appellant's father sought 
the articles from the authorities. However, the hospital 
H 
852 
.,... . 
\ 
~ 
i ·-'-
' f 
" 
:f 
~ 
C.K. PRAHALADA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
853 
& ORS. 
authorities asked the appellant's father to obtain a A 
succession certificate for return of the articles. Appellant's 
father applied for the certificate. G-wife of deceased was 
impleaded as a party. G expired during pendency of 
proceedings, leaving behind S-her adopted son. 
Appellant's father was granted Succession Certificate. B 
Howe"'.er, on the production of the ::;ame, hospital 
authorities did not return the articles. Appellant's father 
filed a suit seeking direction to the hospital authorities to 
hand over the articles to appellants. An application u/s 
80(2) CPC was filed and the same was allowed. Suit was c 
decreed ex parle. Six years later execution case was filed. 
On receipts of summons, the State filed appeal. It also filed 
application for condonation of delay and the same was 
allowed. High Court held that the decree passed by the 
trial court was not sustainable and remitted the matter to 
the trial court. Hence the present appeal. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A succession certificate is granted for a 
limited purpose. A Court granting a succession certificate 
does not decide the question of title. A nominee or holder E 
of succession certificate has a duty to hand over the 
property to the person who has a legal title thereto. By 
obtaining a succession certificate alone, a person does 
not become the owner of the property. [Para 10] [858-D-E] 
Vidhyadhbari and Ors. vs. Sukhrana Bai and Ors. 2008 
F 
(2) sec 238 - referred to. 
1.2 Th!~ r.-:- 11rt would not exercise its extraordinary 
jurisdiction only because it is lawful to do so. This Court 
has the power to pass necessary orders for doing 
complete justice to the parties. The High Court rightly held 
G 
that G was a necessary party. As she expired during the 
pendency of the proceedings, her heirs and legal 
representatives should have been impleaded as parties 
in the said proceedings. The decree might have been 
passed ex parte but when the same has been brought to 
H 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
~ ' 
A the notice of this Court, in exercise of discretionary 
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 
it should not be interfered. [Para 1 O] [858-A-C] 
Mis. Tanna & Modi v. C. I. T Mumbai XXV and Ors. 2007 
B 
(8) SCALE 511 -
relied on. 
1.3 There was enormous delay. in filing the appeal. 
~. 
Ordinarily, this Court would not have condoned the said 
delay in filing the appeal but in the instant case, the First 
Appeal filed by the State has also been allowed by the 
~c High Court. Keeping in view the n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.