Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Inderman

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 31, 1969
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/455289

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Act No. VII of 1889 (Succession Certificate Act), Section 6 - Certificate not necessarily to collect all the debts of the deceased. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Inderman

Legal References

Reported In
(1896)ILR18All45

Excerpt

act no. vii of 1889 (succession certificate act), section 6 - certificate not necessarily to collect all the debts of the deceased. - aikman, j.1. the appellant in this case is the son of mathura das, deceased. mathura das and baiju mal obtained a joint decree against kuar suparandhuj prasad singh. the appellant wished to put this decree into execution, but, in order to do so, he had to produce before the court which had to execute the decree a certificate granted under act no. vii of 1889, and having the judgment-debt specified therein. in order to enable him to comply with the requirements of section 4 of this act the appellant asked the district judge of aligarh to grant him a certificate in respect of the judgment-debt referred to in his application. the learned district judge passed the following order: 'i cannot grant a certificate for partial collection. the applicant is at liberty to apply for certificate for all debts due to the deceased.'2. it does not appear that there are any other debts, and, even if there were, i know of no law which compels an applicant under section 6 of act vii of 1889 to ask for a certificate in respect of more debts than he wishes to collect. there is nothing to prevent a grant of such a certificate as that asked for by the appellant.3. i allow the appeal, and, setting aside the judge's order dated the 28th february 1895, direct him to restore the application to the file of pending applications and dispose of it according to law with reference to the remarks made above. as there is no respondent i make no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Aikman, J.

1. The appellant in this case is the son of Mathura Das, deceased. Mathura Das and Baiju Mal obtained a joint decree against Kuar Suparandhuj Prasad Singh. The appellant wished to put this decree into execution, but, in order to do so, he had to produce before the Court which had to execute the decree a certificate granted under Act No. VII of 1889, and having the judgment-debt specified therein. In order to enable him to comply with the requirements of Section 4 of this Act the appellant asked the District Judge of Aligarh to grant him a certificate in respect of the judgment-debt referred to in his application. The learned District Judge passed the following order: 'I cannot grant a certificate for partial collection. The applicant is at liberty to apply for certificate for all debts due to the deceased.'

2. It does not appear that there are any other debts, and, even if there were, I know of no law which compels an applicant under Section 6 of Act VII of 1889 to ask for a certificate in respect of more debts than he wishes to collect. There is nothing to prevent a grant of such a certificate as that asked for by the appellant.

3. I allow the appeal, and, setting aside the Judge's order dated the 28th February 1895, direct him to restore the application to the file of pending applications and dispose of it according to law with reference to the remarks made above. As there is no respondent I make no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial