2026:JHHC:20375 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 112 of 2025 ------ Priya Ranjan Bhagat, aged about 65 years, son of Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat, resident of Old Commissioner Compound, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. G.P.O., District Ranchi .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Dr. Anita Vaish, wife of Dr. S.V. Vaish, daughter of Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat, resident of Apollo Clinic, 142A, Hanuman Mandir Road, Betiahata, P.O. and P.S. Betiahata, Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur (U.P.) 2. Mrs. Anjana Jaiswal, wife of Sri Anil Jaiswal, daughter of Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat, resident of adjacent to Aaz Press, Frazer Road, P.O. and P.S. Dakbangla Road, District Patna, Bihar 3. Dr. Manju Bhagat, wife of Sri Binod Kumar, daughter of Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat, H.O.D. Management Department, resident of B.I.T. Mesra, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. Mr. Anjana Jaiswal, wife of Late Rakesh Ranjan 5. Miss Sirishthi Ranjan, daughter of Late Rakesh Ranjan Both resident of B-17/216, Pharma Apartment, P.O. & P.S. Patparganj, Patparganj, New Delhi 6. General Public, resident of Old Commissioner Compound, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Appellants : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1, 2 &3 : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.4 &5 : Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Advocate ------ 02/09.07.2026 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5. 2. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, wherein challenge has been made to the order dated 03.10.2024 in Succession Case No.19/2023 (T.R. No.08/2023) passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner VII, Ranchi whereby he has been pleased to grant succession certificate to the applicants and other legal heirs and successors of the deceased. 3. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant herein has instituted Succession 2 Case No.19/2023 before the court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi for grant of certificate in respect of debt and securities mentioned in Schedule A and B in the name of applicant to collect the debt or to receive amount and interest thereon and that was preferred under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. He next submits that Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat and Late Pramila Bhagat were parents of the appellant and respondent nos.1 to 3 and prayer has been made to allow debts and securities mentioned in Schedule A and B for receiving the same in favour of the appellant. He further submits that respondent nos.1 to 3 are daughter of the depositors whereas respondent no.4 is daughter-in- law and respondent no.5 is granddaughter of Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat and Late Pramila Bhagat. He next submits that depositor Ranjit Lal Bhagat died on 02.03.2017 after retirement from the post of District Judge. He died in his residence at Ranchi whereas mother of the appellant and respondents- Pramila Bhagat died on 17.10.2022 at Ranchi residence. The only brother of the appellant, Rakesh Ranjan also died on 28.07.2021 at Delhi leaving behind respondent no.4 as widow and one daughter Sirishthi Ranjan (respondent no.5). He further submits that the deceased Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat and Late Pramila Bhagat, who are the parents of the appellant and the respondent nos.1 to 3, had jointly deposited STDR Certificate No.34029973555 in State Bank of India, Main Road Branch, Ranchi of Rs.06,01,611/- mentioned in Schedule A of the petition whereas the deceased Pramila Bhagat has three STDR Account in State Bank of India, Main Road Branch, Ranchi for Rs.28,59,435/- mentioned in Schedule B of the petition and to that effect, a letter has been issued by the concerned Bank on 16.02.2023 disclosing the date of maturity of the said certificate. He submits that Ranjit Lal Bhagat and Pramila Bhagat were permanently and ordinarily residing at Old Commissioner compound within territorial jurisdiction of Ranchi court and the parents of the applicant died intestate leaving no WILL and the appellant has looked after the last rituals of the parents, who were residing at Ranchi. He also submits that after the death of Rakesh Ranjan on 28.07.2021, mother of the applicant/appellant- Pramila Devi had 3 changed the nominee for STDR No.37526535811 for Rs.17,83,651/- from Rakesh Ranjan to her granddaughter Sirishthi Ranjan and the said granddaughter Sirishthi Ranjan received the amount from the Bank recently and in view of that the applicant/appellant is only entitled to the estate left by his parents and no application has earlier filed in any court in respect of debt and securities mentioned in Schedule A and B. 4. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that learned Additional Judicial Commissioner VII had erred in passing the said order holding that all are entitled of 1/5th share each of the Schedule property. According to him, he has acted beyond the spirit of Indian Succession Act, 1925 mainly Section 373 of the said Act. By way of referring the said Section 373 of the said Act, Mr. Kumar submits that the certificate was required to be issued in favour of the appellant only and thereafter the appellant was further required to distribute the same to the other legal heirs, who are the respondents in the present appeal. To buttress this argument, he relied in the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Others Vs. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai reported in (2000) 6 SCC 301. By way of relying the said judgment, learned counsel, Mr. Kumar submits that only the prima facie title was required to be considered wherein the learned court has determined the 1/5th share of each of the parties which is not in accordance with Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned judgment may kindly be modified. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 and 5 opposed the prayer and submit that so far the present case is concerned, there is no dispute of legal heirs and successors. Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner after appreciating the evidence on record as well as the contention of both the sides, has clearly held in para 11 that admittedly, Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat and Late Pramila Bhagat, wife of Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat had two sons namely Priya Ranjan Bhagat (P.W. 1) and Late Rakesh Ranjan and three daughters namely Dr. Anita Bhagat, Miss 4 Anjana Bhagat and Dr. Manju Bhagat (D.W.1) and has found that there is evidence that they are legal heirs of Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat and Late Pramila Bhagat, wife of Late Ranjit Lal Bhagat. In view of that he has come to the conclusion that Schedule property must be divided in 1/5th to each sons and daughters. Since Rakesh Ranjan has died, 1/5th share will develop jointly on his wife Miss Anjana Jaiswal (respondent no.4) and his daughter Miss Sirsthi Ranjan (respondent no.5). 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act is not restricting to the fact that it is required to be provided to the one legal heir and successor. He submits that in the light of Sub-section 3 of Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act it seem to be too intricate and difficult for determine then only court may restrict to pass the order. He submits that so far the case in hand is concerned, it is admitted position that all are the legal heirs and successors. 7. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5 submits that this issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhyadhari Vs. Sukhrana Bai reported in (2008) 2 SCC 238 wherein in para 14 it has been held as under: - “Therefore, though we agree with the High Court that Sukhrana Bai was the only legitimate wife yet, we would choose to grant the certificate in favour of Vidhyadhari who was his nominee and the mother of his four children. However, we must balance the equities as Sukhrana Bai is also one of the legal heirs and besides the four children she would have the equal share in Sheetaldeen's estate which would be 1/5th. To balance the equities we would, therefore, choose to grant succession certificate to Vidhyadhari but with a rider that she would protect the 1/5th share of Sukhrana Bai in Sheetaldeen's properties and would hand over the same to her. As the nominee she would hold the 1/5th share of Sukhrana Bai in trust and would be responsible to pay the same to Sukhrana Bai. We direct that for this purpose she would give a security in the trial court to the satisfaction of the trial court. 8. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that in that case also 1/5th of the share held to be valid as in that case also there was no dispute with regard to legal heirs and successors of the deceased. 5 9. Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 submits that this question was subject matter before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shanti & Others Vs. Pankaj & Others reported in AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 14 and Section 373 was considered in the said case and he refers to para 9 and 12 of the said judgment which quoted herein below:- 9. Abdul Gafur Mahmadsaheb Maniyar v. Jayarabi Ibrahim, AIR 1929 Bombay 456, relied upon by the learned trial court related to a case against the grant of certificates to different persons in respect of different properties. There was no question in the facts of that case of the grant of a joint certificate to more than one person in respect of the property of the deceased. In Mt. - Jagtaran Kuer v. Mt. Gaitri Debi, AIR 1936 Pat 430, in the facts it was held that it was not a case which fell under Section 373(4) at all. In any case in neither of the above authorities was any proposition laid down that in no circumstances can a certificate be issued jointly in favour of various claimants and the certificate can be issued only in favour of one person. 12. After considering the above submissions, it is clarified that with regard to Indira Vikas Patras it will be open to the petitioners to have their remedy in establishing their title by a civil suit. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the order of the learned Additional District Judge is modified. As a result, the succession certificate with reference to assets (i) to (iii) above shall be issued jointly in favour of Pankaj, and Shiwani as well as Shanti alias Rekha and Ravi in equal shares. The shares relating to Pankaj, Robind and Shiwani be receivable by Sham Lal on their behalf whereas the share relating to Smt. Shanti alias Santosh, Rekha and Ravi shall be payable to Smt. Shanti alias Santosh for herself and on behalf of her minor children in equal shares. 10. Relying on the above judgments, he submits that the argument made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant may kindly be negated and the judgment of the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner may kindly be confirmed. 11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record. 12. On query made by the court, learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that there is no dispute with regard to the legal heirs and successors of the deceased. In view of his such admission, it is 6 crystal clear that there is no dispute with regard to the legal heirs and successors of the appellant as well as of the respondents herein. 13. Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner VII, Ranchi while deciding Succession Case No.19/2023 has discussed the case and particularly examined the prayer made in the petition/plaint. He has further considered Exhibit 1 to 4 which are the death reports of Ranjit Lal Bhagat, Pramila Bhagat, Rakesh Ranjan and certificate of SBI respectively. Dr. Manju Bhagat was examined as one of the witness, who was opposite party no.1/D.W.1. He has also scrutinized the evidence of P.W. 1 and has found that their statement has corroborated all the stories as per the plaint and proved the death certificate and other SBI documents. He has also taken into consideration Section 370 of the Indian Succession Act. Learned court has also taken into consideration Sections 372 and 32 of the Indian Succession Act and has given the finding at para 11 that all are legal heirs and successors and they are entitled for 1/5th share of the Schedule property each. 14. Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhyadhari (supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5 and identical was the situation there that 1/5th share in the said case also be provided. Thus, present case is fully covered in the light of the said judgment. There is no dispute with regard to legal heirs and successors and Sub-section 3 of Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act restricts if the dispute is intricate and difficult to determine then the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant can be appreciated, however, fact of the present case in view of the above discussion is not coming under the purview of Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act. Further, in the light of above discussion and considering Sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, the court finds that there is no bar for issuing certificate jointly. The court further finds that the learned court has rightly dealt with the issue as there is no dispute about the legal heirs and successors of the deceased. 7 15. So far the judgment relied by the Mr. Birendra Kumar in the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Others (supra) is concerned, in that case in para 18, this aspect has been considered that if the issue is intricate and difficult then that situation will be rare for granting the certificate in favour of one person who will further provide to others. 16. Thus, the judgment relied by Mr. Birendra Kumar is not helping the appellant. 17. In view of above facts, discussion, reasons and analysis, there is no illegality in the judgment passed in Succession Case No.19/2023 (T.R. No.08/2023) by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner VII, Ranchi. 18. This appeal is hereby, dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 09.07.2026 Anit A.F.R. Uploaded 14.07.2026