IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 55 of 2004 Satnam Singh S/o Late Sarabjeet Singh, Minor, through next friend and natural guardian Rishipal Singh … Appellant. Vs. Tarsem Singh and another ..Respondents. Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: 28-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, has been preferred against the order dated 20-12-2003, passed by Additional District Judge/ Ist F.T.C., Nainital, in Succession Case No. 09 of 2002. 2- Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal are that applicant/appellant Satnam filed a succession case under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for issue of succession certificate in respect of amounts standing in the name of his father late Sarabjeet Singh, i.e. Rs. 5,26,990-70P. standing in S.B. Account No. 01190042491 at S.B.I. Haldwani; Rs. 80,450-00 in S.B. Account No. 52, in Nainital Bank Ltd. Branch Lalkuan and Rs. 86,000-00 in S.B. Account No. 13/1186, in S.B.I. Branch Sisaya, total amount of Rs. 6,93,440-00. Notice was published in daily Newspaper “Amar Ujala Dated 17-10-2002.” The Opposite Parties/respondents Tarsem Singh and Harjinder Singh, the real brother of late Sarabjeet Singh appeared before the trial Judge and filed their objection alleging therein that on 7-10-1998 their brother late Sri Sarabjeet Singh has sold the 38 2 Bighas land of joint ownership to Sri Gopal Singh for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,42,000/- and all the three brothers got the amount of their share but late Sarabjeet Singh also sold 30 Bighas land of joint ownership on the same day to one Suresh Pal at a price of Rs. 5,86,000/-. Suresh Pal paid the said amount through cheque No. 125180 dated 12-10-98 drawn at Canara Bank, Haldwani. Out of the said amount, Rs. 5,00,000/- were deposited by late Sarabjeet Singh in S.B.I. Haldwani and Rs. 86,000/- in S.B.I. Sarsiya, Sitarganj. Therefore, the objectors/ respondents have prayed that the amount of sale consideration, i.e. Rs. 5,86,000/- should be paid to them in three equal shares and succession certificate should not be issued for the amount of their shares. 3- The learned Additional District Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the objection filed by opposite parties, directed the parties to got decided the dispute pertaining to Rs. 5,86,000/-, by a decree of civil court. However, for the remaining amount 1,07,440/- lying in deposit in the name of late Sarabjeet Singh, succession certificate was issued in favour of the appellant/applicant. 4- Feeling aggrieved, the applicant/appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 5- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6- Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has submitted that the amount is lying in the account of late Sarabjeet Singh, father of the applicant/appellant, and there was a prima facie case in favour of the applicant for issue of succession certificate, but the 3 learned Additional District Judge, has committed illegality by not granting certificate of entire amount in favour of the applicant/appellant. He also argued that in a summary proceeding, like succession case, the Court may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. 7- Learned counsel also cited before me the following rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in support of his argument:- 1- Smt. Ningamma and others Vs. Smt. Sakmma and others, reported in AIR 2001, Karnataka, 339. 2- Abdul Gafur Mahmadsaheb Maniyar Vs. Jayarabi Ibrahim and others, reported in A.I.R. 1929, Bombay 456. 3- Ammini Ammal, Vs. Lekshmi and others, reported in AIR 1957 Kerala 90. 4- Smt. Jaskunver Vs. Smt. Kanchanbai and others reported in AIR 1991 Madhya Pradesh, 362. 5- Smt. Krishna Pyari Bai Dixit Vs. Gobind Mishra, reported in AIR 1992 Madhya Pradesh, 145. 6- Mrs. Prabha Bhasin Vs. The State, reported in AIR 1989, Delhi 244. 7- On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties/respondents has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and urged that the opposite parties/respondents have filed the objection against in the succession case specifically pleading that amount of Rs. 5,86,000/- is the sale price of joint property sold by late Sarabjeet Singh, hence the 4 learned Additional District Judge has rightly refused to grant succession certificate in respect of above disputed amount. 8- I have gone through the above case laws cited before me by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. The facts of these case laws are totally different to that of case in hand and are not applicable to the facts of this case, therefore, the applicant/appellant does not get any help of the same. 9- Perusal of record reveals that the opposite parties/respondents, after notice of the succession case, filed objection, alleging therein that they are the real brother of late Sarabjeet Singh. They were joint owner property of Khata No. 38 situated in village Bametha Bangar Kheema. On l7.10.98 all the three brothers sold 38 Bighas land to Gopal Singh Pal for a sale consideration of Rs. 7,42,000/- and got equal share in the above amount. Late Sarabjeet Singh also sold 30 Bighas land belonging to all the brothers, to one Suresh Pal for a sale price of Rs. 5,86,00/- and all the three brothers executed the sale deed in favour of Gopal Singh Pal. They also alleged that the sale price was given by purchaser through cheque No. 125180 dated 12-10-89 drawn at Canara Bank Haldwani. Out of the above sale price, Rs. 5,00,000/- were deposited in State Bank and balance amount of Rs. 86,000/- was deposited in S.B.I. Sarsiya, Sitarganj. According to the objectors they did not get their share from the sale price, therefore, their 1/3rd share each be given to them. In support of their case, the opposite parties/respondents filed copy of Khautani to prove their joint ownership of the land and also filed two sale deeds. The sale deeds have been executed by the objectors/respondents along with their brother late 5 Sarabjeet Singh. The payment of second sale deed has been done through cheque as alleged by them. Therefore, the objectors/respondents have been successful in establishing a prima facie case in their favour disputing the amount of Rs. 5,86,000/- for which the applicant/appellant prayed for issue of succession certificate in his favour. The learned Additional District has rightly concluded that the dispute cannot be decided in a summary proceeding like succession case and directed the parties to get decided their dispute from a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Once the opposite parties have filed objection against the succession application and have satisfied the court that there is prima facie case in their favour to dispute the amount for which succession certificate has been claimed, the court cannot order for issue of succession certificate until the dispute has been settled by mutual consent of parties or through a court of competent jurisdiction. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 10- In view of discussion made above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 20-12-2003 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP 6