JOSEPH EASWARAN WAPSHARE & ORS. versus SHIRLEY KATHELEEN WHEELER

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 732 · Decided: 26-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
JOSEPH EASWARAN WAPSHARE & ORS.
v.
SHIRLEY KATHELEEN WHEELER
(Civil Appeal No. 2284 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Succession Act, 1925:
ss. 372, 383, 33(a) and 25 – Revocation of Succession
Certificate granted u/s. 372 in favour of appellant No.1 – Respondent
filed application u/s. 383 seeking revocation of the Succession
Certificate – Sub-Judge held that the respondent being the outsidser
for the family could not maintain the application for revocation;
and that since the previous proceedings for probate of Will initiated
by the mother of the respondent had abated, the application for
revocation was barred by res judicata – High Court, in revision set
aside the finding as regards res judicata and remanded the matter to
Sub-Judge to decide the matter afresh – On appeal, held: Succession
Certificate can be revoked only for the reasons set out in Section
383 – The reasons mentioned in s. 383 is not satisfied in the present
case – Respondent is neither a family member nor a lineal
descendant – Revocation of Succession Certificate was rightly
refused by Sub-Judge – Though the High Court was right in its
finding on res judicata but the High Court should have decided the
case on the other grounds instead of remanding the case.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Under Section 383 of Succession Act, 1925, the
Certificate granted u/s. 372  could only be revoked for the reasons
set out in Section 383. Revocation cannot be granted unless any
one of sub-sections (a) to (e) of Section 383 is satisfied, which is
not the case on facts in the present appeal. It is clear therefore,
that on this ground alone, the Sub-Judge was justified in refusing
to revoke the Succession Certificate so granted. Even otherwise,
it is clear that the respondent has nothing whatsoever to do with
the Wapshare family which is clear from her averment in her
Section 383 application. [Para 9][737-G-H]
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 732
732
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
733
2. Section 33(a) makes it clear that the intestate’s property
goes only to his widow and his lineal descendants. Since father of
appellant No. 1 died intestate, the Will set up in the application
for probate having abated, the appellant is the only living lineal
descendant, together with his two sons. This would make it clear
that, in any event, the respondent would have no interest
whatsoever either as a member of the family or as a lineal
descendant in setting aside the Succession Certificate so granted
as she is neither a family member nor a lineal descendant. [Para
10][738-C-D]
3. Though the High Court was correct in setting aside the
Sub-Judge’s order on its finding on res judicata, but that was not
the end of the matter. The High Court ought to have gone into
the other two grounds, which found favour with the sub-Judge,
which it did not do. [Para 10][738-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2284
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.03.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1261 of 2006
R. Anand Padmanabhan, Romil Pathak, Prawal Chaturvedi,
Ms. Nishaka Tyagi, Aravind C. and Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advs for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
1) Nobody appears for the respondent, even though service is
complete.
2) Leave granted.
3) The present appeal arises out of a proceeding to revoke a
Succession Certificate that was granted in favour of the appellant on
16.03.2005.
4) The appellant No.1 is the son of one Gorden Wapshare.  Gorden
Wapshare had a brother called Edward Wapshare, who  married one
Beatrice.  Apparently, this marriage was fruitless as there was no issues
therefrom.  He also had two sisters, one of whom Miss Dorthy Wapshare
was unmarried, who is since dead; and the other Miss Violet Wapshare,
who was married and has a daughter called Ellen Mary Jackson.  Gorden
Wapshare was himself married and had two sons - one of whom is the
JOSEPH EASWARAN WAPSHARE & ORS. v. SHIRLEY
KATHELEEN WHEELER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
734                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
appellant No.1, and the other son called Robert Babu Wapshare, who is
dead. The appellant No.1, in turn, is married and has two sons.  The
respondent before us Ms. Shirley Katheleen Wheeler is said to be the
daughter of Beatrice, who, as stated herein above, was the wife of Edward
Wapshare.
5) Gorden Wapshare d

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