1999 (4) TMI 658 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the dues on account of Provident Fund, Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Life Insurance, arrears of pay, Death-cum-retirement Gratuity, etc., fall within the ambit of 'debts and securities' under Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act.
2. Whether the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti had jurisdiction to entertain the application for the issue of a succession certificate.
3. Whether the respondent was the widow of the deceased and thus entitled to the succession certificate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Dues as 'Debts and Securities':
The petitioner argued that the dues in question do not fall within the ambit of 'debts and securities' as per Section 381 of the Indian Succession Act. The petitioner relied on various judgments, including the Calcutta High Court's decision in Assam Bengal Railway Co., Ltd. v. Atul Chandra Sen, which held that Provident Fund is not a debt or security. However, the court found that the Provident Funds Act and the Insurance Act envisage that a succession certificate may be issued by the court for the amounts due on Provident Fund and insurance policies. The court further elaborated that the amounts due to the legal heirs of a deceased employee, such as Provident Fund, Compulsory Deposit Scheme, Life Insurance, arrears of pay, Death-cum-retirement Gratuity, etc., are indeed 'debts' as they are payable by the employer upon the death of the employee. Therefore, the court rejected the petitioner's argument and held that these dues fall within the meaning of 'debts' under Section 381 of the Act.

2. Jurisdiction of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti:
The petitioner contended that the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti, lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for the succession certificate, as the deceased was residing in Gonda at the time of his death. According to Section 371 of the Act, the jurisdiction lies with the District Judge where the deceased ordinarily resided at the time of death. The court noted that the petitioner had not raised the issue of jurisdiction at the trial court or in the grounds of appeal. The court emphasized that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring specific pleas and supporting evidence. Since the petitioner failed to raise this issue earlier, the court found no merit in the jurisdictional argument and upheld the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti.

3. Status of Respondent as Widow:
The petitioner challenged the respondent's status as the widow of the deceased, arguing that she was married to another person. However, the court found overwhelming evidence supporting the respondent's claim as the widow of the deceased. The trial court and the appellate court both recorded findings that the respondent had lived with the deceased for about 40 years and was acknowledged by the deceased as his wife in official documents. The court dismissed the petitioner's reliance on discrepancies in the family register, stating that the register's entries were not sufficient to displace the deceased's admission and other corroborative evidence. The court concluded that the respondent was indeed the widow of the deceased and entitled to the succession certificate.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. The court affirmed that the dues in question fall within the ambit of 'debts,' the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Basti had jurisdiction, and the respondent was the widow of the deceased. The succession certificate issued in favor of the respondent was upheld.