Skip to main content

Succession Can Only Be Granted To Legal Heirs Of A Person Who Dies Intestate

In Rampali vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court has held that in cases where someone dies without a will, succession can only be granted to the legal heirs of that person, not the nominee.

Justice Valmiki Mehta was hearing an appeal against an order by the trial court dated January 18, 2017, wherein the application for revocation of succession certificate filed by the appellant was rejected.

The succession certificate was granted to Sonia Yadav and Bhim Singh, daughter and husband of deceased Kamla Devi, who passed away on April 25 last year.

The appellant, Rampali, is the deceased’s sister.

She sought revocation of the succession certificate on two grounds.

One, the father and daughter had not been residing with the deceased for 35 years and secondly, in government records, Rampali was Kamala Devi’s nominee.

The trial court dismissed this application on the ground that Sonia Yadav and Bhim Singh were the legal heirs of Kamla Devi under Section 15 (1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act and that nomination is not a will in law and it does not make a nominee owner of the property.

Justice Valmiki concurred with the trial court’s position and held that nomination is not a will in law was settled in the case of Smt Sarbati Devi and Another Vs Smt Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346 by the Supreme Court.

Dismissing Rampali’s appeal, the court observed: “The present case is indeed a hard case because the petitioners of the succession certificate case are walking away with the property of the deceased Smt. Kamla Devi although Smt. Kamla Devi had separated from the petitioners of the succession certificate case before 35 years prior to the death of Smt. Kamla Devi. However, in the view of the settled legal position that nomination is not a Will, and in the absence of the any Will of Smt. Kamla Devi in favour of the present appellant, who is the real sister of deceased Smt. Kamla Devi, only those persons who are legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act inherit the properties.

Accordingly, this Court has no option but to dismiss the present appeal.”


Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)

5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…


Who is Necessary to Proper Party

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, [1959] SCR 1111, relied on. Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All E.R. 273 and Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England, (1950) 2 All E.R. 611, referred to.

National Textile Workers’ Union, etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 922,


Meaning of Necessary or Proper Party

Whether Court could direct plaintiff to add lessee as defendant in suit.

Whether Court has discretion to direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party.

The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : 1992 (2) SCR 1 : JT 1992 (2) SC 136 : 1992 (1) Scale 530 : 1992 (1) CCC 594 : 1992 (1) RCR 644 : 1992 (2) UJ 181 held that a party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him.

A bench comprisi…