MANOJ KABEER, NAZEEMA KABEER, MERLIYA FAISAL, M.BEEPATHUMMA, M.BALKIES v FAREEZA SULAIMAN, MISS PARVEEN SULAIMAN

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/9TH ASWINA, 1935** ## **CRP.No. 105 of 2012 (E)** **----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.849/2011 IN S.O.P. NO.14/1996 OF MUNSIFF COURT ALATHUR, DATED 13.12.2011** ## **REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REV.PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/LRS :** - **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. MANOJ KABEER** **S/O.LATE AHMED KABEER, AGED 43 YEARS APPLE PHOTOBEEDI COMPANY, ALATHUR.** ## **2. NAZEEMA KABEER** **W/O.LATE AHMED KABEER, AGED 60 YEARS, SWATHY NAGAR ALATHUR.** ## **3. MERLIYA FAISAL** - **D/O.LATE AHMED KABEER, AGED 42 YEARS, ROSE VILLA FARUKH, CALICUT.** ## **4. M.BEEPATHUMMA** - **HOUSE WIFE, D/O.LATE A.S.MOHAMMED KUTTY SAHIB RESIDING AT ANTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VIYOOR, THRISSUR.** ## **5. M.BALKIES,** - **HOUSE WIFE, D/O.LATE A.S.MOHAMMED KUTTY SAHIB RESIDING AT NAMBOOTHIRY MADOM, NEAR BUS STAND KODUNGALLUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **----------------------------------------------------------------------------** ## **1. FAREEZA SULAIMAN** - **W/O.LATE M.SULAIMAN, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDINT AT ROSE VILLA FARUKH, CALICUT - 673 631.** ## **2. MISS PARVEEN SULAIMAN** **D/O.LATE SULAIMAN, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING WITH – DO -673 631.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ** **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **CRP.No. 105 of 2012 (E)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE-1 : COPY OF THE PROFORMA OF THE APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE COPY OF GOLD BOND DATED 27.10.1965** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **==> picture [17 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> JJJ<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **C.R.** ## **N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.** ------------------------------------------ C.R.P. No. 105 of 2012 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of October, 2013 ## **O R D E R** The challenge in this revision petition is the order passed by the learned Munsiff on an application filed under section 376 of Indian Succession Act. That petition was filed for extension of succession certificate. Earlier O.P. (Succession) No.14/1996 was filed by the deceased father of the 1[st] plaintiff under section 372 of Indian Succession Act. Petitioners 2 and 3 were also parties to that proceedings. That petition was mainly filed for issuance of a succession certificate for certain amounts which the petitioners therein were entitled to receive. Hence, succession certificate was issued in that case. Subsequently, the parties came to know that National Defence Gold Bond, which stood in the name of late Sarabi, had attained maturity and was ## **C.R.P. No. 105/2012** **-2-** available to be received by the legal heirs of deceased Sarabi. Hence, the petitioners were asked to produce succession certificate entitling them to collect the amount or gold ornaments. On receipt of that letter from the Reserve Bank of India, I.A. No.849/2011 was filed by the petitioners before the Munsiff's Court for extension of the succession certificate issued in O.P. (Succession) No.14/1996. That petition was filed on 20.7.2011. 2. The learned Munsiff declined to grant extension of the certificate holding that the petition is barred by limitation. The court below held that since the certificate in O.P. (Succession) No.14/1996 was issued on 19.3.1997 and since the petition was not filed within three years from that date, this application is barred by limitation. ## **C.R.P. No. 105/2012** **-3-** 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no period of limitation, as such, is prescribed for extension of a certificate issued under the Indian Succession Act. But the court below held that under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Act, shall be filed within three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. According to the learned Munsiff the right to apply for extension accrued on the date of issuance of the certificate, which was issued on 19.3.1997. 4. The view so taken by the learned Munsiff has been taken exception to by the learned counsel for the petitioners pointing out that a right to apply for extension of certificate so far as it relates to the Gold Bond referred to above, did arise only on the date of maturity and when the Reserve Bank of India intimated that fact to the petitioners and if so, **-4-** ## **C.R.P. No. 105/2012** the period of limitation can run only from that date and not from the date of issuance of the original certificate. There is no rationale in holding that the period of limitation should start from the date of issuance of the certificate since the cause of action for inclusion or for seeking extension of the certificate pertaining to the Gold Bond arose only when the production of that certificate was necessitated and the parties were intimated of that fact. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has produced the copy of the communication issued by the Reserve Bank of India to show that the communication was issued long after the issuance of the original certificate. Therefore, the amount or the gold ornament which was with the Reserve Bank of India was not available to be included in the original petition filed for issuance of certificate. ## **C.R.P. No. 105/2012** **-5-** 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in **Vasudev Daulatram Sadarangani v. Sajni Prem Lalwani – AIR 1983 Bombay 268** in support of his submission that for filing an application for probate, letters of administration or succession certificate, the right to apply accrues when it becomes necessary to apply and not necessarily be within three years from date of death of the deceased. There is force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the right to apply for a certificate or for extension of the certificate would not get extinguished as it is capable of being exercised as long as the right to collect money or any other security payable to the deceased was available. Therefore, the application for issuance of the succession certificate need not be within three years from the date of death of the deceased, but may arise at any time after the death of the deceased depending **-6-** ## **C.R.P. No. 105/2012** upon the term or period of deposit made by the deceased and when the legal heirs are intimated of that fact. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there may also be a case where the deceased may not have disclosed to his legal heirs as to the deposit of money or other valuables made by him, for the realisation of which a succession certificate may be required. But that does not mean that the right of the parties would get lost because the application was not filed within three years from the date of death of the depositor/deceased. In such circumstances also the application can certainly be filed within three years from the date of knowledge of such deposit of money or security. 8. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the application filed by the petitioners ## **C.R.P. No. 105/2012** **-7-** as I.A. No.849/2011, all the procedures which are required to be complied with, for getting succession certificate had already been complied with by effecting publication etc and no objection was raised by anybody regarding issuance of such a certificate. In such circumstances, the contention that the petitioners are not entitled to get extension certificate since that application was not filed within three years from the date of issuance of succession certificate dated 19.3.1997, is found to be untenable. In the result this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Munsiff is set aside. The parties to the proceedings will appear before the Munsiff's Court on **24.10.2013** . The learned Munsiff will proceed further for the issuance of the certificate by collecting the court fee etc, after ascertaining the value of the gold/amount which the petitioners are to receive from **-8-** ## **C.R.P. No. 105/2012** the Reserve Bank of India. Petitioners will furnish the details and pay the court fee without delay. Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj