Two kidneys of deceased were removed by hospital authority with consent of wife and mother.kidney was removed when deceased was alive for price of 270000/.said amount is debt. succession certifcate can be granted in respect of said money.
Beena vs Rajamma on 28 June, 2002
ORDERA. Lekshmikutty, J.
1. Challenging the order in I.A. No. 2784 of 2001 in O.P. (Succession) No. 112 of 1996 on the file of the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, this revision petition is filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the O.P. for grant of Succession Certificate for the debts due to her deceased husband who died on a road traffic accident in Saudi Arabia. The respondent is the mother of deceased Ajithkumar. The parties are Hindus governed by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act in the matter of Succession. The petitioner and the respondent are the only legal heirs of deceased Ajithkumar. While the O.P. was pending, the petitioner filed a petition to withdraw the same. It was disallowed and against the order, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 1614 of 2000 before this Court. This Court remanded the matter to consider whether the respondent is entitled to the grant of Succession Certificate. The dismissal of the withdrawal petition was confirmed by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. 2784 of 2001 regarding the maintainability of the Q.P. The court below found that the O.P. (Succession) is maintainable. Against the said order, this C.R.P. is filed by the petitioner.
2. Heard counsel on both sides. Originaliy, the petitioner filed the succession O.P. for the grant of succession certificate in respect of the debts due to deceased Ajithkumar, the husband of the petitioner and son of the respondent. There is no dispute that the parties are Hindus governed by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. While the petition was pending, the petitioner filed a petition to withdraw the succession O.P. The said application was dismissed by the lower court and against which C.R.P. 1614 of 2000 was filed before this Court. In the C.R.P. this Court found that the dismissal of the withdrawal petition is correct and remanded the matter to consider whether succession certificate can be granted to the respondent. After the remand, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2784 of 2001 regarding maintainability of the petition. As per the petitioner, the amount claimed in the petition is not the debt due to the deceased. So, the succession O.P. will not lie. In order to substantiate the said contention, the petitioner relies on the decision reported in Ruksana v. Nazrunnisa (2000 (2) KLT P. 33 SN 38). In the said decision, it was held that succession certificate as envisaged in the Indian Succession Act can be granted only in respect of 'debts' or 'securities' to which a deceased was entitled. Here, the amount claimed by the petitioner is not a debt or securities in respect of the deceased. It is seen from the records that two kidneys of deceased Ajithkumar were removed by the hospital authority with the consent of the petitioner and the respondent and as price of the said organ an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was allowed. So, according to the respondent, it is the compensation due to the death of the deceased Ajithkumar and not a debt due to the deceased while he was alive. The court below found that the kidneys were removed from the body of deceased Ajithkumar while the deceased was alive and Rs. 2,70,000/-was fixed by way of price of the kidneys. The contention of the revision petitioner is that it has been removed after the death of Ajithkumar. This version of the petitioner cannot be accepted. There is no use for the kidneys of a person who is dead. So, it is a debt due to the deceased. In such circumstances, the Court below has rightly found that the O.P. is maintainable. There is no merit in the revision and it is dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment