P.L. Basappa Vs. Siddamma

P.L. Basappa vs Siddamma

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jun 17, 1965

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/377691

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/377691
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K.S. Hegde, J.
Decided On: Jun 17, 1965
Case Number: Ex. Second Appeal No. 65 of 1963
Subject: Family;Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MINES AND MINERALS (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT (67 OF 1957) Section 5 & 11(3) & Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Section 2 & Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Rule 630-A: [P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.& V.G. Sabhahit,J] Restriction on grant of prospecting licenses or mining leases Restriction on de-reservation of fores...

Key legal issue: Family;Property
Acts & sections: Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 214; Hindu Succession Act - Sections 8; Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 - Sections 3

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.L. Basappa

Respondent

Siddamma

Legal References

Acts: Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 214; Hindu Succession Act - Sections 8; Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 - Sections 3
Reported In: AIR1966Kant198; AIR1966Mys198; (1965)2MysLJ167

Excerpt

.....public interest litigation petitioners sought to direct respondents not to issue any mining leases in respect of iron ore, until all existing steel industries are issued captive mining leases; to grant captive mining leases to steel manufacturing industries in proportion to their respective licensed capacity on preferential basis; etc.- held, thus section 11(3)(d) of the mmdr act specifically contemplates top take into consideration the investment which the applicants propose to make in the mines and the industries based on minerals; and rule 35 of the m.c rules provides for preferential rights of certain persons, considering the end use of the mineral by them. while mining as a stand alone industry cannot be ignored, the contention of the petitioner based on the policy decision of the central and state government that preference should be given to captive mining while granting mining lease, also deserves due consideration. the schedule of time prescribed under the rule 63-a of the m.c rules is also required to be strictly adhered to, as the state is bound by such time schedule in deciding the applications for grant of mining lease. it is true that no specific time limitation is given for granting approval by the central government, but that does not mean that the central government could take its own sweet time, which would be unreasonable and arbitrary, because any such delay would affect the economic growth of the state. in that view of the matter, there is no error or illegality on the part of the petitioner in approaching high court for seeking appropriate direction to both central and state government to process the applications in accordance with the policy decision taken by them, as the petitioner is entitled to seek such relief based on legitimate expectation. therefore, (i) the proposed end use of the minerals by the applicant; and (ii) the captive consumption and value addition of minerals, should be the prime criteria for granting mining..........the latter regulates the succession to the estate of a deceased male hindu dying intestate. the courts below, in my opinion, erred in thinking that the requirements of s. 214 of the indian succession act have been in any manner modified by s. 8 of the hindu succession act.(6) my view in this regard receives full support from the decision of the division bench of the nagpur high court in jadaobai v. puranmal, air 1944 nag 243 wherein it is laid down that on the death of a hindu, who had obtained a money decree, his widow obtains the right to execute the decree on succession and therefore a succession certificate in necessary to the extent of her interest in the property. therein, their lordships were considering the effect of s. 3 of the hindu women's rights to property act, 1937. that section to the extent relevant for our present purpose is similar to s. 8 of the hindu succession act of 1956.(7) for the reasons mentioned above this appeal is allowed. the orders mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. the orders of the courts below are set aside. the execution court is directed not to proceed with the execution unless and until the execution petitioner produces a succession certificate as required by s. 214 of the indian succession act. reasonable time may be given to the execution petitioner for the production of the succession certificate. in the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.li/mvj/d.v.c.(8) appeal allowed

Full Judgment

(1) The only question of law that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the respondent's Execution application in Execution No. 38 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff at Arsikere cannot be proceeded with without the production of a succession certificate.

(2) Ningappa the husband of the respondent obtained a money decree against the appellant in O.S. No. 507 of 1957 on the file of the Munsiff at Hassan. But before he could recover the money decreed he died leaving behind him his widow the respondent and two sons. It is said that the two sons of Nongappa had released their right in the suit decree in favour of their mother, the respondent. The respondent has now levied execution of the decree, the execution case being Ex. No. 38 of 1962 on the file of the Munsiff at Arsikere as mentioned earlier. The execution Applicant is resisted by the judgment debtor on the ground that the same cannot be proceeded without the production of a succession certificate as required by Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

(3) It is not denied that the respondent had no right in the amount decreed during the life time of her husband. It is also not denied that she did not get the property in question by survivorship she acquired a right for a portion of the decree in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956(Central Act No. 30 of 1956). This section regulates succession to the estate of a male Hindu dying intestate. Because of the provisions contained therein the respondent became a legal representative to the deceased. That section says that the property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions contained regulates the succession to the estate of a male Hindu dying intestate. It does nothing more.

(4) Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 prescribes that:

'No court shall--

(a) pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming ' on succession' to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof, or

(b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming 'to be so entitled', to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production by the person so claiming, of-

x x x

(iii) a succession certificate granted under part X and having the debt specified therein'

(Underlining (here into ' ')is mine).

(5) There is hardly any doubt that the respondent's claim for a share in the decree amount to the estate of the deceased. Therefore she cannot proceed with the execution without the production of a succession certificate. I see no conflict between S. 214 of the Indian Succession Act and S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The former lays down that no execution petition shall be proceeded with without the production of a succession certificate when a person claims a right in a decree on the ground of succession, whereas the latter regulates the succession to the estate of a deceased male Hindu dying intestate. The courts below, in my opinion, erred in thinking that the requirements of S. 214 of the Indian Succession Act have been in any manner modified by S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

(6) My view in this regard receives full support from the decision of the Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Jadaobai v. Puranmal, AIR 1944 Nag 243 wherein it is laid down that on the death of a Hindu, who had obtained a money decree, his widow obtains the right to execute the decree on succession and therefore a succession certificate in necessary to the extent of her interest in the property. Therein, their Lordships were considering the effect of S. 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to property Act, 1937. That section to the extent relevant for our present purpose is similar to S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956.

(7) For the reasons mentioned above this appeal is allowed. The orders mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The orders of the courts below are set aside. The Execution Court is directed not to proceed with the execution unless and until the execution petitioner produces a succession certificate as required by S. 214 of the Indian Succession Act. Reasonable time may be given to the Execution Petitioner for the production of the succession certificate. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.

LI/MVJ/D.V.C.

(8) Appeal allowed

Same Parties P.L. Basappa vs Siddamma Same Subject Family;Property Same Judge K.S. Hegde, J. Acts & Sections Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 214; Hindu Succession ...

Family;Property