RAJENDRABATI Vs. MUNGALAL
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Click here to view full judgement.
Narayan, J. -
(1.) This is an application under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act and the plaintiff is the petitioner.
(2.) The plaintiff had sued to recover Rs. 400 as, principal and Rs. 100 as interest on the basis of a handnote dated 1st Chait 1354 Fasli said to have been executed by defendant 1 in favour of her deceased husband.
(3.) The defendants resisted the claim on various grounds and one of the contentions urged by them was that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit. This contention found favour with the learned Small Cause Court Judge who accordingly dismissed the claim. The view taken by the Small Cause Court Judge is that the plaintiff being the widow of the person in whose favour the handnote had been executed could not maintain the suit for the recovery of her share of the money because of Section 214, Succession Act. Admittedly, the lady has not obtained a succession certificate and according to the view taken by the learned Small Cause Court Judge she could not sue to recover the amount due on the handnote without obtaining a succession certificate. Section 214 lays down, amongst other things, that no Court shall pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Small Cause Court Judge is correct.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.