BROJENDRA SUNDAR BANERJI Vs. NILADRINATH MUKERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rai Bankim Chandra Chatterjee Bahadur died in 1894 leaving a widow and two daughters. The first daughter had four sons and the second three sons. The widow and both daughters are now dead. In his will no mention was made of the land with which this case is concerned. The widow in due course got letters of administration to his estate with the will annexed. In 1926 land acquisition proceedings began and certain land was compulsorily acquired in the widow's lifetime. The compensation money Rs. 2,000 was kept in deposit under Section 31(2), Land Acquisition Act. In 1919 the widow died. One daughter had predeceased her and the other died in 1927. Thereupon, in 1928, three sons of the daughter who had first died made applications to the Subordinate Judge for succession certificates with reference to the share due to each in the compensation money. A son of the other daughter objected to these applications but the certificates were granted. Thereupon he appealed to the District Judge, 24-Parganas, who dismissed his appeals with costs. He then applied for and obtained from a Division Bench of this Court three several Rules each calling on the applicant for certificate to show cause why the order of the District Judge should not be set aside These rules were granted in the revisional jurisdiction and under the powers conferred by Section 115 of the Code.

(2.) It may be as well that it should here be explained that before making applications for succession certificates the applicants had petitioned the Land Acquisition Judge for payment to them of their share of the money. That Judge had on 18 April 1928, directed them to obtain succession certificates for withdrawal of the amount from the Court.

(3.) The rules granted by this Court came on for hearing before my learned brothers Suhrawardy and Jack, JJ. It was contended before them that a succession certificate could only be granted in respect of a debt due to the deceased and that the compensation money, even if it was a debt, was not a debt due to the deceased. This was the ground upon which the objector had resisted the grant of these certificates before the Subordinate Judge and before the District Judge. It has now been elaborately discussed in four Courts. In support of the decisions of the Courts below, the case of Abinash Chandra V/s. Probodh Chandra [1911] 15 C.W.N. 1018 was relied on. The learned Judges of the Division Bench disagreed with this decision and in their order of reference have discussed various other cases in which a similar question has come before the Courts: Bancharam V/s. Adya Nath [1909] 36 Cal. 936; Annapurna, V/s. Nalini Mohan [1915] 42 Cal. 10, Bishnu V. Mungul Doss 24 W.R. 203.; In re, Mt. Tripura Sundari 22 W.R. 45.; Ranchordas V/s. Bhagubhai [1894] 18 Bom. 394. and Umesh V/s. Mathura [1901] 28 Cal. 246. They have referred the following questions to the Full Bench: (1) If a property is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act alter the death of the owner when it was in the hands of his widow or a person having a life-estate and the compensation money is kept in deposit in the Land Acquisition Collector's Office under Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is such amount a debt within the meaning of Section 214, Succession Act 1925, for which a certificate under Part 10 of that Act has to be obtained? (2) Was the case of Abinash Chandra Pal V/s. Prabodh Chandra Pal [1911] 15 C.W.N. 1018 rightly decided?