Veena Solanki & Anr v. Karuna Singh & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 18, 2018 'gsr'..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 18th July 2018 + RSA 104/2018 & CM No.27739/2018 (for stay) VEENA SOLANKI & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. S.S. Jauhar & Mr. Jai Prakash, Advs. Versus KARUNA SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the judgment [dated 10th May, 2018 in RCA No.16/2015 (61166/16) of the Court of Additional District Judge-10 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi] of dismissal of appeal preferred by the appellants against the order [dated 23rd May, 2014 in Petition no.199/2003 (Unique ID No.02401C0195462003) of the Court of Administrative Civil Judge (Central), Delhi] though granting Succession Certificate to the two appellants but alongwith the respondents no.2&3, with each having 1/4th undivided share, in the debts and securities with respect to which the Succession Certificate was sought by the appellant. 2. It is the case of the appellants that the two appellants alone are entitled to Succession Certificate and not along with respondents no.2 and 3. 3. This appeal came up first before this Court yesterday, when it was enquired from the counsel for the appellants as to how a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC lies against an order in appeal against the order of grant of Succession Certificate. 4. The counsel for the appellants contended that against an order of First Appellate Court, a Second Appeal lies. 5. However, it was pointed out to the counsel for the appellants yesterday that the position urged by him is in respect of judgments and decrees in suit and not in respect of proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate codified in the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Attention of the counsel for the appellants was invited to Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act as under: 384. Appeal. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of a District Judge granting, refusing or revoking a certificate under this Part, and the High Court may, if it thinks fit, by its order on the appeal, declare the person to whom the certificate should be granted and direct the District Judge, on application being made therefor, to grant it accordingly, in supersession of the certificate, if any, already granted. (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) must be preferred within the time allowed for an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (5 of 1908). (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) and to the provisions as to reference to and revision by the High Court and as to review of judgment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (5 of 1908.) as applied by section 141 of that Code, an order of a District Judge under this Part shall be final. 6. The counsel for the appellants yesterday stated, that he had preferred an appeal against the order of the Administrative Civil Judge to this Court but which appeal was held to be not maintainable. On request of the counsel for the appellants, the hearing was adjourned to today. 7. The counsel for the appellants has today, in Court handed over copy of the order dated 27th August, 2014 of this Court in FAO No.176/2014 titled Veena Solanki & Anr. Vs. State & Ors. and which is as under: "1. Appellant filed a petition before the Administrative Civil Judge- cum-Additional Rent Controller (Central Delhi) which has been allowed and succession certificate has been granted in favour of the appellants as well as respondent nos. 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 23rd May, 2014 of the Administrative Civil Judge appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') envisages that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of a District Judge granting, refusing or revoking a certificate under this Part. Section 384 does not provide an appeal to High Court f