Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kureshi, CJ and Arindam Lodh, J., allowed and disposed of an appeal filed aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge.

Petitioner was the second wife of a deceased government servant Nani Gopal Roy and was entitled to a family pension as her nomination was also made by the deceased government servant during his lifetime. Despite which the respondents were not giving her the pension to which she had filed a writ petition. While allowing the writ petition the Single Judge ordered the respondents to release the pension subject to the production of the survival certificate of Nani Gopal Roy and Mamata Bala Roy, the first wife of the deceased government servant. The petitioner’s grievance was that she was unable to produce those documents because of which she was not receiving her pension.

The Court while allowing and disposing of the appeal stated that the government has not shown any rule which would require the claimant of the family pension to produce the documents of the first wife, thus, that direction needs to be deleted and with respect to the document of the husband, a No-objection of all legal heirs of a deceased is not a requirement for issuance of survival certificate. Thereupon, the Court directed the petitioner to apply to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate for issuance of survival certificate of deceased Nani Gopal Roy and then approach the State-authorities for release of her family pension. [Maya Rani Roy v. State of Tripura, 2020 SCC OnLine Tri 62 , decided on 11-02-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of Dr Ravi Ranjan, CJ and Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. addressed an appeal in which the daughter-in-law of a deceased employee of State-owned respondent company Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) sought for payment of family pension as well as other dues accrued to her mother-in-law after the death of her father-in-law.

In the present matter, the father-in-law of the appellant was an employee of the respondent company. When he died, the appellant’s mother-in-law, who was the nominee, and deceased employee’s son could not get a family pension as they both died. After their death, the appellant agitated her grievance for payment of dues. When asked to produce a succession certificate by the respondent company, she challenged it by way f filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that since appellant herein was not the only legal heir upon whom the entire estate would devolve, she must obtain a succession certificate from a court of competent jurisdiction. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal was filed.

The counsel for the appellant N.K.P. Sinha argued that the earlier writ petition was dismissed for want of impleading the other legal heirs whereas in the present case legal heirs have been brought on record but the court held that no such relief was ever sought in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner previously. Also, the counsel contended that the daughter-in-law is entitled to receive the amount due to the absence of the original deceased employee.

The Court noted that Clause 64 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme states that the whole amount shall be payable to the person legally entitled to it and on the last proviso which further lays down that if the amount to be paid exceeds Rs 25,000 then no payment shall be made to a person unless he is in possession of succession certificate issued in his name by the competent court.

The counsel for the respondents further confirmed at the time of hearing that there is no other scheme available either today or at the time of the death of the member than the said scheme.

It was observed by the Court that there are other heirs of the deceased member upon whom the estate will devolve even as per the scheme as laid down under Clause 64 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme. Further, it was held that in such circumstances, this becomes a case of grant of succession certificate. Only upon the grant of succession certificate, one can come to the conclusion as to who would be entitled to receive the fund and in what share.

Thus, it was held by the Court that a succession certificate is important in this case. In view thereof, the appeal was dismissed for being bereft of merits. [Kamli Devi v. Central Coalfields Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 1945, decided on 03-12-2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the matter relating to the executability of decree for permanent injunction against the legal representatives of judgment-debtor, the Bench of Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy, JJ said that normally personal action dies with person but this principle has application to limited kinds of causes of actions and hence, in view of the specific provisions contained in Section 50 CPC, such a decree can be executed against legal representative.

The Court noticed that If an injunction decree is capable of being enforced against a person other than the judgment-debtor by virtue of a statutory provision contained in Section 50 CPC, it can be executed equally against the son who inherits the estate of his father as well as against one who was joint with the father and brought on the record as his legal representative.

In the present case, the defendant in the original suit had sold 1.68 acres of land, though the land allotted to him on partition was only 1.58 acres. He had then tried to remove and destroy the wooden fence and made an effort to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff, the owner of the neighbouring property, thereby resulting into a permanent injunction. After his death, his heirs, in violation of the decree for permanent injunction, tried to forcibly dispossess the decree-holder from his property.

Taking note of the abovementioned facts, the Court said that the right which had been adjudicated in the suit in the present matter and the findings which have been recorded as basis for grant of injunction as to the disputed property which is heritable and partible would enure not only to the benefit of the legal heir of decree-holders but also would bind the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. It is apparent from Section 50 CPC that when a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been satisfied, it can be executed against legal representatives. Section 50 is not confined to a particular kind of decree. Decree for injunction can also be executed against legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. [Prabhakara Adiga v. Gowri, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 153, decided on 20.02.2017]