RANJAN KUMAR RAMAN Vs. RENU KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12.6.2002 passed by lllrd Additional District Judge, Madhepura in Succession Cases No.5 of 1992 and 5 of 1993 dismissing both the cases on the ground that both the cases are not maintainable.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the matter are that appellants filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of a succession certificate in the name of appellant No.1 being legal heir and successor of deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary. Their application was numbered as Succession Case No.5 of 1993. The case of appellants was that appellant No.1 is the adopted son of deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary. Respondent Renu Kumari also filed similar application on the ground that she was adopted daughter of deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary and her case was numbered as Succession Case No.5 of 1992. Both the parties claimed succession certificate for withdrawing a sum of Rs. 13,000/ - deposited in the State Bank of India, Madhepura Branch vide account No. 47/26827 standing in the name of deceased Raj Kumari Choudhary. Both the cases were heard together and were disposed of by the same impugned order.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, by relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Hira Poddar vs. Parwati Devi reported in 2001 (1) BBCJ V -482 [: 2001(1) PLJR 528], has submitted that Section 373 of Indian Succession Act is the procedure followed by Court on receipt of application for grant of succession certificate under Section 372 of Indian Succession Act and this procedure is summary procedure in nature and in this enquiry, the Court has simply to see that who is entitled to get the certificate without going into detailed investigation as to title of the parties. He has further argued that before the Court below, the matter remained pending for about more than ten years and finally the Court dismissed both the cases without deciding the question involved in both the cases. In the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned counsel of appellants, it has been held as follows: