succession

2018-09-19

Tags:
Revocation of Succession Certificate

2018 SCMR 762 SUPREME-COURT
383—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 198—Succession certificate, revocation of—Succession certificate obtained fraudulently—After the demise of propositus of the parties, his son, respondent was successful in getting a succession certificate in his name by claiming himself to be the sole legal heir of the deceased propositus—Subsequently after culmination of the proceedings in his favour, respondent also submitted an undertaking in the court for submission of details of accounts and also held himself liable/responsible to satisfy the claim of any other legal heir of the deceased if any, in case someone came forward—On getting knowledge of the said fraud ulent act of respondent ‘propositus’ daughters/appellants moved an application under S. 383 of the Succession Act, 1925 for revocation of succession certificate, which was allowed by the Trial Court—High Court set aside the order of revocation of succession certificate; held, that when status and relationship of the parties with the propositus was not denied then every legal heir was entitled to get/receive his/her Shari share to the extent of his/her entitlement in the property moveable/ immovable left by the propositus—Respondent alleged that every legal heir was paid his/her due share, thus, it was for the respondent to have proved his stance of payment of respective shares to all the legal heirs but he had miserably failed to do so—Record established that the original succession certificate was obtained by respondent by practicing fraud with the Court and the appellants—Appellants being poor illiterate ladies had no knowledge of the original succession certificate and after getting knowledge of the same filed application for revocation of the same—Trial Court had rightly revoked the succession certificate issued in favour of the respondent—Respondent had verified a false statement, rather concealed the true facts before the Court regarding actual legal heirs of the deceased propositus and thus apparently had committed fraud with the Court and the parties, therefore, Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to proceed against the respondent under S. 198, P.P.C. as required by S. 372(2) of the Succession Act, 1925—Appeal was allowed accordingly with costs to be borne by the respondent for the entire litigation.

Read More at Paklawyer