1 Intest. Cas./10/2017 1 GAHC010060272017 2026:GAU-AS:9646 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Intest.Cas./10/2017 Sri Surajit Dutta Choudhury, S/o Late Anil Kanta Choudhury, R/o West Norsing Road, P.O. and P.S. Silchar, District-Cachar, Assam, Pin-788001. …..Appellant -Versus- 1. Sri Victor Palit, S/o Late Banabehari Palit. 2. Smti Shyamali Palit W/o Late Banabehari Palit. Both are Presently Residing at Village-Kantalia Jhautala, P.O. Nibria, P.S. Domjur, District-Howrah, West Bengal and Previously Residing At Oakland Shillong-1, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, Pin-71140. ……Respondents 2 Intest. Cas./10/2017 2 [1] Heard Mr. S. Biswas, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Banik, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. F. Begum, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. [2] This appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been filed by the appellant, namely, Sri Surajit Dutta Choudhury, impugning the judgment and order dated 14.07.2017, passed by the learned District Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Misc. Succession Case No. 28/2016, whereby, prayer for issuance of succession certificate in respect of debts and securities of deceased Dipti Palit, to the appellant was rejected by the trial court. [3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present appellant had filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before For Appellant Mr. S. Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) 1. Mr.S. Banik, Advocate. 2. Ms. F. Begum Date of Hearing : 14.07.2026 Date of Judgment : 14.07.2026 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA JUDGMENT AND ORDER 3 Intest. Cas./10/2017 3 the court of the learned District Judge, Cachar, Silchar for issuance of succession certificate to the appellant in respect of the properties left by the deceased Dipti Palit, who died intestate on 29.11.2015. It was averred in the said petition by the present appellant that he is the sole heir of the deceased Dipti Palit under Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and there is no impediment under Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate to the appellant. [4] After filing of the aforesaid succession case, notices were issued to the respondents, namely, Sri Victor Palit and Smti Shyamali Palit (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the instant appeal). The respondents claiming themselves to be a nephew and sister-in-law of the deceased, respectively, objected to grant of succession certificate to the appellant and also filed a counter-claim claiming issuance of succession certificate in favour of the respondents. [5] On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- “i. Whether there is cause of action for petition for grant of succession certificate?” “ii. Whether the objectors are the legal heirs of deceased as per law or entitled to get any relief?” “iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a certificate as prayed for?” 4 Intest. Cas./10/2017 4 [6] In support of his case, the present appellant examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited certain documents. On the other hand, the respondents also examined the respondent No. 1 as DW-1 and exhibited certain documents. However, the trial court came to the finding that the properties left by the deceased was herself acquired property and hence, succession is to be governed in accordance with Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the present respondents were found to be preferential heirs of the deceased and, accordingly, succession certificate was directed to be granted to the present respondents on furnishing of requisite court fee and indemnity bond. [7] Mr. S. Biswas, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the respondents are heirs of the deceased as per Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and thus, are preferential relatives than that of the appellant, who is the heirs of the deceased under Section 15(1)(d) of the said Act. However, he submits that in the instant case, the non obstante cause contained in Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ought to have been made applicable in this case and not provisions contained in under Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. [8] On the other hand, Mr. S. Banik, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in the instant 5 Intest. Cas./10/2017 5 case, there is clear finding of the trial court that the properties left by the deceased Dipti Palit are herself-acquired properties and there is no material on record to indicate that the said properties were inherited from her father’s side or the side of the husband. As such, he submits that the trial court was right in applying the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for granting the succession certificate to the present respondents as they are entitled to inherit the properties of the deceased being preferential heirs under Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. [9] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. I have also gone through the impugned judgment. [10] Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides as follows:- “15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.― (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,― (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; 6 Intest. Cas./10/2017 6 (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),― (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased(including the children of any pre- deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.” [11] On a bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it appears that in case of self-acquired property of a female Hindu dying intestate, same shall devolve upon her heirs as per the scheme provided for in Section 15(1) of the said Act. Said provision enlists five categories of heirs of a female Hindu and the heirs are enlisted in a preferential manner, i.e., heirs in entry (a) excludes the heirs in subsequent entries, i.e., entry (b), (c), (d), and (e) from inheriting the property. Similarly, heirs in entry (b) excludes heirs in subsequent entries from inheriting the property. In other words, amongst 7 Intest. Cas./10/2017 7 the five categories of heirs mentioned in entry (a) to entry (e) of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the heirs enlisted in previous entry excludes the heirs enlisted in the subsequent entry from inheriting the self-acquired property of a female Hindu. The exceptions to this general rule are provided in Section 15(2) (a) and Section 15(2)(b) of the aforesaid Act depending upon source from where the deceased female Hindu, dying intestate, inherited her property. [12] In the instant case, on perusal of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that the properties (debts and securities) in respect of which the succession certificate has been granted, are the self-acquired properties of the deceased Dipti Palit. It also appears that there is nothing on record to indicate that the properties in question were inherited by the deceased from her paternal side. The appellant claims to be the son of deceased’s brother. As such, he falls within the category (d) of Section 15 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Whereas, the respondents, being the sister-in-law and the nephew of the deceased, fall within category (b) of Section 15(1) of the said Act, hence, they are to be given preference over the present appellant in the matter of inheriting the self-acquired properties of the deceased Dipti Palit. The respondents, being preferential heirs of the deceased, under Section 15 (1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, exclude other heirs, including 8 Intest. Cas./10/2017 8 the present appellant, from inheriting the properties of the deceased Dipti Palit. [13] On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that in the said judgment the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the respondents are entitled to get succession certificate in respect of the debt and securities of the deceased Dipti Palit on the basis of principles discussed in the paragraph numbers 11 and 12 of the instant judgment as well as in accordance with the general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus as enshrined in Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As such, this court finds no infirmity in the impugned judgment justifying any interference in the same in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. [14] This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with cost. [15] Send back the records of the trial court, along with a copy of this judgment to the trial court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Munmun Boruah Digitally signed by Munmun Boruah Date: 2026.07.15 17:34:47 +05'30'