Joseph Easwaran Wapshare & Ors. vs Shirley Katheleen Wheeler

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

26 February 2019

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 2284 of 2019

Result

Allowed

Bench

R.F. Nariman, Vineet Saran

Citation

[2019] 2 S.C.R. 732 : 2019 INSC 277

Headnote

Succession Act, 1925:

ss. 372, 383, 33(a) and 25 – Revocation of Succession Certificate granted u/s. 372 in favour of appellant No.1 – Respondent filed application u/s. 383 seeking revocation of the Succession Certificate – Sub-Judge held that the respondent being the outsidser for the family could not maintain the application for revocation; and that since the previous proceedings for probate of Will initiated by the mother of the respondent had abated, the application for revocation was barred by res judicata – High Court, in revision set aside the finding as regards res judicata and remanded the matter to Sub-Judge to decide the matter afresh – On appeal, held: Succession Certificate can be revoked only for the reasons set out in Section

383 – The reasons mentioned in s. 383 is not satisfied in the present case – Respondent is neither a family member nor a lineal descendant – Revocation of Succession Certificate was rightly refused by Sub-Judge – Though the High Court was right in its finding on res judicata but the High Court should have decided the case on the other grounds instead of remanding the case. Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1. Under Section 383 of Succession Act, 1925, the Certificate granted u/s. 372 could only be revoked for the reasons set out in Section 383. Revocation cannot be granted unless any one of sub-sections (a) to (e) of Section 383 is satisfied, which is not the case on facts in the present appeal. It is clear therefore, that on this ground alone, the Sub-Judge was justified in refusing to revoke the Succession Certificate so granted. Even otherwise, it is clear that the respondent has nothing whatsoever to do with the Wapshare family which is clear from her averment in her Section 383 application. [Para 9][737-G-H]

2. Section 33(a) makes it clear that the intestate’s property goes only to his widow and his lineal descendants. Since father of appellant No. 1 died intestate, the Will set up in the application for probate having abated, the appellant is the only living lineal descendant, together with his two sons. This would make it clear that, in any event, the respondent would have no interest whatsoever either as a member of the family or as a lineal descendant in setting aside the Succession Certificate so granted as she is neither a family member nor a lineal descendant. [Para 10][738-C-D]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. F. NARIMAN, J. 1) Nobody appears for the respondent, even though service is complete. 2) Leave granted. 3) The present appeal arises out of a proceeding to revoke a Succession Certificate that was granted in favour of the appellant on 16.03.2005. 4) The appellant No.1 is the son of one Gorden Wapshare. Gorden Wapshare had a brother called Edward Wapshare, who married one Beatrice. Apparently, this marriage was fruitless as there was no issues therefrom. He also had two sisters, one of whom Miss Dorthy Wapshare was unmarried, who is since dead;

View Subscription Plans →