LexJOGINDER PAL versus INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A · JOGINDER PAL v. INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 B [K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] Indian Succession Act, : Part X Sections 373 and 387. Succession Certificate-Grant of-Res judicata-Principles- C Applicability of-Succession Certificate granted to applicant on the basis of a subsequent Will-Aggrieved party filed a suit based on an earlier Wi/1- High Court remanded suit for trial-Correctness of-Held: Proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate are summary in nature-No rights are finally decided in such proceedings-Decision given under Part X of the Act is D outside the purview of Expln. VIII to S. I I CPC-Findings given in such summary proceedings are not final and do not operate as res judicata- Hence, suit is not barred by principles of res judicata-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Expln VIII to S. 11. The Predecessor-in-interest of the appellant executed a Will in respect E of her movable and immovable properties in favour of the Respondent Society. Subsequently, the said testator executed another Will by which she cancelled the earlier Will and bequeathed all her properties to the appellant After the death of the said testator the respondent society applied for a Succession Certificate in respect of the properties of the said testator. The F appellant got impleaded as a party to this application. The trial court dismissed the application and granted a Succession Certificate to the appellant on the basis of the subsequent Will. The appeal and the Revision filed by the respondent society were dismissed. G Thereafter, the respondent society filed a suit for a declaration that it was the lawful owner of the assets of the said testator on the basis of the earlier Will. The Trial Court rejeeted the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on t •• c ground that the plaint did not make out any case. The appeal filed by the respondent society was allowed and the case H remanded back for trial on merits. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed 626 - - c JOGINDERPALv. INDIAN REDCROSS SOCIETY 627 by the appellant. Hence this appeal. A On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the trial for grant of Succession Certificate was not disposed of in a summary manner; that issues had been raised, parties had been allowed to lead evidence and decision on merits was given by the court; and that the suit for declaration was barred on , the principles of res j udicata under Explanation VIII to Section 11 CPC. B Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : Sections 373, 383 and 387 of the Indian Succession Act, make it clear that the proceedings for grant of succession certificate are summary in nature and that no rights are finally decided in such proceedings. Section C 387 permits the filing of a suit or other proceedings even though a succession certificate might have been granted. [632-E-F] 2. Any adjudication under Part X of the Act does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in a subsequent suit or proceeding. Section 387 of the Act provides that a decision given under Part D X of the Act is outside the purview of Explanation VIII to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 387 gives a protective umbrella to ward off from the rays of res judicata to the same issue being raised in a subsequent suit or proceedings. [632-H; 633-A] 3. Section 387 of the Act specifically permits filing of a subsequent suit. Merely because issues were raised and/or evidence was led, does not mean that the findings given thereunder are final and operate as res judicata. Even E in summary proceedings issue can be raised and/or evidence can be led. The proceedings remain summary even though the Court may, in its discretion, permit leading of evidence and raising of issues. So in a subsequent suit the F crucial issues must be decided afresh untrammeled or uninfluenced by any finding made in the proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate. [633-B-C] Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai, JT (2000) 5 SC 336, relied on. Smt. Sawarni v. Smt. lnder Kaur, (1996) 7 JT SC 580 and Mohan Lal v. Kartar Singh, [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 684, held inapplicable. CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5664of2000. G From the Judgment and Order dated 5.10.99 of the Punjab and Haryana H 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A High Court in S.A.F.O.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.