HALEEMA Vs. SHEIKH AB. AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against revocation order of the succession certificate dated 19.5.2003 by District and Session Judge, Srinagar in Succession case No. 43/01. The succession certificate was issued in favour of petitioner No. 1 widow of the extent of l/8th and alleged daughter petitioner No. 2 the extent of 7/8th, consequent on death of one Sheikh Nazir Ahmed. As indicated in the order and certificate, Haleema and Rehana (widow and alleged daughter) moved application Under Section J&K; Succession Certificate Act 1976 (1920 A.D.) before District Judge Srinagar in respect of an amount of Rs. 2, 86, 836/ -lying in the Saving Bank A/c No. 9964 and medi -claim with the Govt. due for payment to deceased Sheikh Nazir Ahmed. In the certificate proceedings except these two no one was arrayed as party or shown as non -applicant. The District Judge, Srinagar issued certificate in favour of the petitioner in the ration of 1/8 : 7/8 in respect of above debt to the widow and daughter of the deceased respectively. One Sheikh Abdul Aziz father of the deceased filed an application on 29.8.2002 before District Judge, Srinagar for revocation of succession certificate granted to the two petitioners on the ground that being father of the deceased he was not arrayed as party or shown as non -applicant in the succession certificate. The deceased died issueless and the applicant No. 2 shown to be daughter of the deceased is instead daughter of one Noor Mohd. Darzi brother of petitioner No. 1. All these facts have been suppressed and concealed and the certificate has been obtained fraudulently.

(2.) UPON hearing the parties after affording them opportunities to file objections and on their participation in proceedings, the Ld. District Judge came to the conclusion that the non -applicant to the revocation application and the persons who succeeded in getting succession certificate earlier did conceal and suppress the facts that the applicant Sheikh Abdul Aziz is the father of the deceased who is living and that non -applicant No. 2 Rehana, is not real daughter of the deceased as alleged in the original application for the certificate (now claimed to be adopted daughter of the deceased). These facts and circumstances are admitted by the other side. Therefore, on concealment of these material facts the earlier order and the issuance of earlier succession certificate is revoked and the parties are relegated to the initial position as if no certificate has been issued with direction to file supplementary objections for determination of the entitlement of concerned person(s) to the certificate on merits. The certificate holders before its revocation are being asked to deposit the amount in court. All the above facts would fairly indicate that the two petitioners have failed to comply with provisions of Section 6 of the Succession Certificate Act which inter alia provides that in the prescribed application the particulars of the family or other near relatives of the deceased and their respective residence shall be averred and set forth. It is also requirement of the Section that the right in which the petitioner(s) claim the certificate is disclosed and set -forth with full particulars. Obviously this has not been done. Section 18 empowers the District Court to revoke the certificate if the certificate is granted in proceedings being defective in substance and that the certificate was obtained by concealment of facts, material to the case or fraudulently buy making false suggestion. The facts are admitted by the other side fully answer the above description of causes legally tenable to revoke the certificate.