Holding

A succession certificate is granted in summary proceedings on prima facie title and does not conclusively determine heirship or extinguish the rights of other claimants, so the appellate court rightly confirmed the certificate in favour of the nominee/wife and children.

Summary

The deceased Pratapsinh Harwarilal Dalal, a veterinary doctor and assistant professor at Junagadh Agricultural University, died in a road accident on 3.5.2016. Original petitioner No.1 Ranjanben claimed to be his legally wedded wife, married in 1993, with two children, and was recorded as nominee in his service book for pensionary benefits. The University required a succession certificate, so Ranjanben and her children applied under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, and the trial court granted a certificate on 21.10.2016. Revisionist Satvantibhen claimed she was the deceased's legally wedded wife married in 1977 with two sons, and challenged the certificate by filing a regular civil appeal, which was dismissed on 31.8.2020. In the High Court revision, she argued non-disclosure of family/near relatives and permanent address, non-consideration of documents, and that nomination cannot override succession. The High Court held that the appellate court had considered the documents, that additional evidence was not brought under Order 41 Rules 27 and 28 CPC, and that a succession certificate is a summary prima facie determination that does not conclusively decide heirship or forfeit other claimants' rights. The revision petition was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether the appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the grant of succession certificate in favour of the original petitioners.
Whether non-disclosure of family members/near relatives and the deceased's permanent address under Section 372(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act vitiated the succession certificate proceedings.
Whether the revisionists' documents could be considered at the appellate stage without following Order 41 Rules 27 and 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Whether nomination in the deceased's service records overrides the succession rights of legal heirs.
Whether grant of a succession certificate operates as res judicata or conclusively determines title and heirship.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 115, s. Order 41 Rule 27, s. Order 41 Rule 28
Hindu Succession Act
Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 370 to 390, s. 371, s. 372, s. 372(1)(c), s. 373, s. 373(3), s. 381, s. 384, s. 384(1)(3), s. 384(2), s. 388

Subjects

Succession CertificateIndian Succession ActNomineeLegal HeirPrima Facie TitleSummary ProceedingCivil Revision ApplicationAdditional EvidenceOrder 41 Rule 27 CPCFamily PensionNominationRes JudicataHindu Succession

Judgment

C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

Reserved On : 06/01/2026
Pronounced On : 22/01/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 146 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
HEIR OF DECD. PRATAPSINH HARWARILAL DALAL - SATVANTIBEN
PRATAPSINH DALAL
Versus
RANJANBEN PRATAPSINH DALAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KV SHELAT(834) for the Revisionists
MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the Respondent No. 4
MR HEMANG M SHAH(5399) for the Respondent No. 2,3
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE with MR NINAD P SHAH(10911) for
the Respondent No. 1
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Present CRA led u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (in short “the Code”) r/w section 384(1)(3) of the Indian
Succession Act, 1925 (in short “the Act”) is directed against
judgment and order dated 31.8.2020 passed by the learned 4 th
Additional District Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal
No.3 of 2017, whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed

Page 1 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

the appeal and con rmed the judgment and order passed by
the learned Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in CMA No.429 of
2016 to grant succession certi cate in favour of the original
petitioners.

2. The revisionists before us led Regular Civil Appeal No.3
of 2017 before the learned appellate Court against the
original petitioners claiming that revisionist No.1 is the legally
wedded wife of deceased Pratapsinh Harwarilal Dalal. The
original petitioners without joining the revisionists as party in
the proceedings for getting succession certi cate, obtained
succession certi cate in their favour by playing fraud not only
upon the revisionists but also upon the Court.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, petitioners are
referred to as revisionists, respondents are referred to as
original petitioners and deceased Pratapsinh Harwarilal Dalal
is referred to as the deceased.

4. The factual matrix leading to ling of the present
petition is as under:-

4.1 Amongst original petitioners, petitioner No.1 Ranjanben
claimed that she is legally wedded wife of the deceased, who
was serving as a Veterinary Doctor and Asst. Professor in the
Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Agricultural University,
Junagadh (in short “the University”). She married to the
deceased on 14.8.1993 and out of said wedlock, she gave birth
to two children, namely Grishma and Prajjval, aged 22 and 19
yrs respectively being original petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

Page 2 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

4.2 On 3.5.2016, the deceased during his service tenure,
expired due to road accident. The original petitioner No.1
was appointed as nominee by the deceased in his service book
maintained with the University for the purpose of family
pension, leave encashment, PF, gratuity, group insurance,
post-retirement bene ts etc. The original petitioner No.1
claimed service bene ts of the deceased on the basis of she
being legally wedded wife and nominee of the deceased.

4.3 The University insisted for succession certi cate vide
letter dated 29.7.2016. In the premises of the aforesaid facts,
the original petitioners preferred application u/s 372 of the
Act before the jurisdictional Court i.e. learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Junagadh claiming issue of succession certi cate
in regards to pensionary bene ts of the deceased lying with
the University. All the original petitioners to be class 1 heirs
of the deceased under the Act, did not join any other persons
as opponents since, because except the original petitioners,
there were no near relatives of the deceased at the time of
ling of the application.

4.4 The learned trial Court after publishing citation, was
pleased to issue succession certi cate in favour of the original
petitioners by judgment and order dated 21.10.2016. The fact
was becoming known to the revisionist No.1 that the learned
trial Court has passed the order issuing succession certi cate
in favour of the original petitioners from the University where
they made inquiry and thus, she led captioned Regular Civil

Page 3 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

Appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh
for cancellation / revocation of the succession certi cate
under the provisions of the Act.

4.5 The learned appellate Court after through and elaborate
discussion, dismissed the rst appeal and con rmed the
judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.

4.6 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order
passed by the learned appellate Court, the revisionists are
before this Court by ling present petition.

5. Heard learned advocate Mr. KV Shelat for the
revisionists, learned Senior counsel Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted
by learned advocate Mr. Ninad Shah for the original
petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Amar Mithani for the
respondent University.

6. Fly at the judgment and order passed by the learned
appellate Court impugned in this petition, learned advocate
Mr. KV Shelat mainly argued that the learned appellate Court
has materially erred in dismissing the appeal led by the
revisionists. He would further submit that in view of section
372(1)(c) of the Act, the original petitioners were required to
furnish particulars of the family members or other near
relatives of the deceased and their respective residence. He
would further submit that the revisionist No.1 is the legally
wedded wife of the deceased and she married to the deceased
in the year 1977 and begotten two children. He would further
submit that all relevant documents were produced on the le

Page 4 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

of the rst appeal; consisting marriage certi cate, birth
certi cate of two sons begotten out of marriage life etc,
however, they were not considered by learned appellate Court
and thereby, materially erred. He would further submit that
permanent address of the deceased having been in the city of
Haryana is also reCected from the service records, but no
notice was issued on this address. All these documents have
totally been ignored by the learned appellate Court.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Shelat would further submit that
since breach of section 372(1)(c) of the Act was attracted in
the matter, it was the duty upon the learned appellate Court
to remand the matter for fresh consideration by permitting
the revisionists to lead necessary evidence to the eEect that
she also falls in the de nition of “family” or “near relative”.
However, the learned appellate Court has committed serious
error in dismissing the appeal by narrating the reasons not
be tting to the legal stipulation and therefore, he submits that
the judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court
is unsustainable. He would further submit that as per the
service records of the deceased, permanent residential
address is shown at State of Haryana and therefore, in view of
section 373 of the Act, the public citation was needed to be
pasted at conspicuous place of the deceased where he was
permanently residing. However, in the present case, since the
original petitioners have surreptitiously hid the material facts
and did not mention existence of the original petitioners from
the permanent residential address of the deceased, no such
notice requiring u/s 373 of the Act was pasted on conspicuous
part of the city and thereby, have committed mischief of

Page 5 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

suppression of material facts and thus, the learned appellate
Court was required to set aside the order passed by the learned
trial Court granting succession certi cate.

7.1 Learned advocate Mr. Shelat would further submit that the
revisionists are the class 1 heirs of the deceased and they
succeeded inheritance of the deceased including the estate of the
deceased and therefore, the succession certi cate was also
required to be issued jointly in favour of the revisionists.

7.2 Lastly, learned advocate Mr. Shelat submits that since the
learned appellate Court did not consider relevant documents
produced by the revisionists, the judgment and order impugned
is non est and does not have any effect of legal order.

7.3 In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Shelat
has referred to and relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Shakti Yezdani and another Vs. Jayanand
Jayant Salgaonkar and others, 2024(4) SCC 642 to submit
that general principle of succession should override the
nomination. The nominee is nothing but a trustee of the estate
of the deceased. The nominee cannot have a better right than
the successor of the deceased.

7.4 Another judgment relied upon by learned advocate Mr. KV
Shelat is in case of Revanasiddappa Vs. Mallikarjun, AIR 2023
SC 4770 to submit that children born out from a void or
voidable marriage will have a right to or in property of parents.

7.5 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. KV Shelat

Page 6 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

requests to allow this petition and to quash and set aside the
impugned judgment and order by remanding the matter back to
the learned trial Court to decide the issue of grant of succession
certificate afresh.

8. As against aforesaid submissions, learned Senior counsel
Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ninad
Shah appearing for the respondents took this Court through
para 17 to 19 and 22 of the impugned judgment and order of
the learned appellate Court, would submit that the submission
canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Shelat that the documents
produced by the revisionists have not been considered by the
learned appellate Court is totally misconceived. He would
further submit that in fact, in view of Order 41 Rule 27 and 28
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “Code”), if the
appellant intended to bring some evidence on record at the
appellate stage, he has to follow the procedure laid down
therein, but in the present case, the revisionists, who were the
appellants before the learned trial Court, just produced
photocopy of the documents by preparing documentary list,
which are generally done in a suit before leading evidence and
therefore, the revisionists cannot claim that the learned
appellate Court has not noticed the documents produced
during the appellate proceedings. He would further submit
that the revisionist has hopelessly failed to prove that she is
legally wedded wife of the deceased. He would further submit
that in fact, during the pendency of the appeal, the original
petitioners have preferred application at Exh.31 calling upon
the revisionists to produce documentary evidence to establish
the claim that the revisionist No.1 is the legally wedded wife

Page 7 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

of the deceased, but this application was neither replied nor
complied with and no evidence was produced by the
revisionists to establish that the revisionist No.1 is the legally
wedded wife of the deceased.

8.1 In the aforesaid arguments, learned Senior counsel Mr.
Mehta submits that the judgment and order passed by the
learned appellate Court is in accordance with law and which
deserves no interference.

8.2 Upon above submissions, learned Senior counsel Mr.
Mehta requests to dismiss the petition.

9. Learned advocate Mr. Amar Mithani appearing for the
respondent University would submit that it being employer of
the deceased, would release the pensionary benefits in favour
of a person, who obtained succession certi cate subject to
order of this Court.

10. Regard being had to the rival submissions of learned
advocates for both the parties, if we summarize the arguments
canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Shelat, he has argued that
the learned appellate Court has not considered the documents
produced by the revisionists during appellate proceedings and
secondly, the original petitioners have surreptitiously not
provided particulars about relatives and permanent
residential address of the deceased and therefore, the
proceeding to issue succession certi cate taken behind the
back of the revisionists are nugatory and against the settled
principles of law.

Page 8 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

11. At the outset, let me refer the findings of the judgment
of the learned appellate Court in para 17 to 19 and 22 , which
is seminal of the entire proceedings to negate the first appeal,
which read as under:-

“17. In appeal memo appellant stated that she
Married to Decd. in the year 1977 at village
Mandothi, Tehsil Bahadurgadh, District Zajjar, time
of State Hariyana. But she has not declared the date
of marriage, place of marriage, name of priest,
children presence of family members of her marriage
with Decd. She has not even declared the say. birth
dates and birth place namely Pankaj and Navin who
were born in the year 1982 and 1989 respectively as
Moreover, she has not adduced any documentary be
legally evidence or affidavit of any family members of
Decd.which supports her claim to wedded wife of
Decd. (As she taken such a plea that respondent no.1
has not declared such facts in C.M.A. and misled the
civil court). In support of her version She has
adduced xerox copy of her Aadhar Card issued on
date 13/01/2014 at Mark 8/4 and xerox coy of
Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India
(duplicate)at mark 8/6 dated 04/07/2008. In both
these documents "Pratap" is shown as her husband's
name and full name of Decd.is not shown. As far as
xerox copy of of village Mandothi is concerned which
is at mark 8/5, certificate issued by Sarpanch
declaring appellant as wife of Deed., that certificate
is neither on letter pad of Gram Panchayat, Mandothi
nor bears any seal impression of panchayat and
without date of its issuance or it. It is silent about the
any outward no. fact, under which authority and on
the basis of such certificte is issued? first page which
information Appellant has adduced xerox copy of of
ration card vide Mark-8/7 but that certificate also
does not bear any seal impression nor date of its
issuance. In that card name of mother of Decd. is

Page 9 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

shown but in that card"Pankaj", who is declared as
son of Decd.in appeal memo, reflects the full name
like "Pankaj Ramdas Dalal" that, appellant has not
made any clarification. Moreover, photo of family
members on it is not properly visible.Appellant has
also adduced xerox copy for application of succession
certificate filed by her and her two sons namely
Pankaj and Navin before the Senior Civil Court
Bahadurgadh vide mark8/3. In that application she
has not joined present respondent no.4 it mark8/3
reflects For as party.From order the for that,
publication of notice was passed in the said
application by concerned Court on Dt.6/12/2016
returnable on 02/03/2017. It transpires from its bare
reading that she has not declared before that court
regarding issuance of succession certificate in favor
of present respondents no.1 to3 by Junagadh senior
civil court as she was having that knowledge as per
mark 8/2 and 8/1 before Dt.6/12/2016, but taken the
plea in appeal that in C.M.A. No.49/2016, Agriculture
University party by the original joined applicants and
thereby misguided the court. This court is also unable
to understand why she has not declared the
description of movable and immovable properties in
the name of decd. when she possesses such
knowledge as declared by her in appeal memo. Even
in appeal memo also she has not given description of
any properties running has asked of Decd. Appellant
succession certificate only in context of post
retirement benefits lying with respondant No.4 at
Decd. was in the name As junagdh. per her version
when residing at junagadh and died at junagdh, dues
of decd. with respodent no.4 is at junagdh then
jurisdiction for such application lies with civil court
junagadh, as per S.371 of The Indian Succession Act,
then she has no reson to apply for succession
cerificate before the civil court court that
Bahadurgadh, jurisdiction. as was not having

As the the appellant has not adduced documents or
affidavits which shows prima facie that she is the wife
of Decd. and pankaj and Navin are children of Decd.

Page 10 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

This is a regular civil appeal from uncontested order,
as per S. 384 6388(2) of the Indian Succession Act,
and provision of 0.41 will also be attracted, During
the pendency of present appeal also, appellant has
not adduced any further documents in support asked
by version, when same were respondent No.1 by
moving an application vide preferred to Ex.31, then
also appellant has not adduce it and asked
adjournment for submission of objection towards it
vide Ex.34 and subsequently of her objections were
also not furnished. Appellant even not applied for
adducing any additional evidence as per rule 27 and
28 of the Order 41 of shown her Civil Procedure
Code. If has she willingness then her evidence might
be recorded as per provision of C.P.C. 0. 41 Rule 27
&28 and considering S.384 and s.388 of the Indian it
Succession Act. No where in appeal memo, reflects
that, during the life time of Decd. appellant ever
come forward with a plea that she is legally wedded
wife of Decd. more over she is silent about the fact,
when she last resided with Decd. at junadadh and at
which place when she visited junagadh frequently?

18. It is admitted between the parties that Decd.was
serving with respondent No.4 since 30 years (that
document is adduced by respondent No.4 in C.M.Α.
No.49/2016 vide Mark-35/8 which shows the date of
birth of Decd. 01/06/1957 and He had joined service
09/03/1987 on and his G.P.F. Passbook was created
on 26/07/1988). On perusal of that document, it
reflects that even at the time of joining service in the
year 1987 Decd. appointed mother his Smt.Khajani
Hardvarilal Dalal his legal as heir and
nominee.subsequently 01/09/1995, on he has
cancelled his old nomination and entered the name of
wife i.e. Original and daughter applicants/present
respondents No.1 and 2 as his nominee. On perusal of
record of C.M.A. it transpires that original applicants
have adduced true copy of of Decd.at death
certificate Ex.13, which shows that Decd. died at
Trimurti Hospital, Junagadh on 03/05/2016. through
the record of C.M.A. that, in his service record,i.e.in

Page 11 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

Ex.22,25to29 i.e.General nomination r On going it is
on record on from-1, filled up Dt.25/3/2014, Form IV
Nomination for Gratuity filled up on Dt. 12/6/1995,
Nomination form for G.P.F. filled up on Dt.
15/4/1995, Correspondence for change of name in
nomination from mother- father to wife and daughter(
i.e. repondents No. 1&2), Decd. declared respondent
No.1 as his wife and appointed her as nominee and
repondents no.2 &3 were shown as his children and
appointed them as second nominee. These forms
were lying with record of respondent no.4 and filled
up by Decd. In presence of his colleagues as attesting
his collegues in presence witnesses. Said entries
were also made in the of as service book of Decd.as
per Ex.27. Undisputedly no where, in his service
record, appellant was shown as his wife by the Decd.
from the date of joining the service till his
death.Original No.1 has also made
applicant/respondent correspondence with
Principal/Dean, Agriculture University for copy of
service book of Decd. vide her letter dated
29/08/2016 but that request was no.4, Agriculture
refused by respondent University vide letter dated
08/09/2016, at Exh.- 28. Moreover, original applicant
Ranjanben has also adduced true copy of marriage
certificate at Ex. 14, for proving her marriage with
Decd.which shows that her marriage ceremony was
performed to Vaidik Vidhi at Arya Samaj, according
Junagadh on 14/08/1993.All these documents were
not challenged, by any body on publication of public
notice, so Ld. Add. senior civil judge has relied on it.

So by adducing copies of service record which was
prepared by Decd.himself in his life time, being a
Govt. employee, in presence of his collegues as
attesting witnesses and with a copy of marriage
certificate original applicants have proved that
applicant no.1 is wife and applicants No.2 and 3 are
children of Decd. and they are also appointed as
nominee by the Decd. for the post retirement benefits
in his absence.and they are also class I legal heir of
Decd. As per Hindu Succession Act. Ld. Add. senior

Page 12 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

civil judge has no reson to discard it.

navin are 19 Against these documents, as discussed
above, bare version that appellant has only came with
she is legally wedded wife of Decd.and pankaj and the
children of Decd. without any supportive documents
or affidavits and she has not chosen to adduced any
documents when it is asked by repondent no.1 in
appeal. It is also on i.e. marriage record in appeal
vide mark 53/2, by up Decd. and in which Decd.
shown his declaration filled form, Respondent no.1
merital status on 14/8/1993 as unmarried.

22 If we look at the conduct of appellant,she has not
cared to prove her status as wife of deceased prima
facie till the end of appeal though she can do it and
being appellate court also,u/s.384(2)read with
Sec.388 of The Indian Succession Act and Order 41
Rule 27 and 28 could have considered that
documents and also would have ascertained the claim
of appellant but from the record it transpires that
appellant is only interested in prolonging the matter
by hook or crook as she has obtained ex-parte stay
order in her favour. From the record of appeal, it also
transpires that respondent has No.1 for moved it.
application for early disposal of appeal but the
appellant has not co-operated Subsequently, the
respondents No.2 and 3 have aplied for release of
some amount of P.F. and gratuity vide Exh.-51 and
same was allowed by my predecessor but against that
order, the appellant has approached the Hon'ble High
Court vide Sp. Civil Application No.10262/18, with
same plea that she is legally wedded wife of Decd.,
without adducing any such evidence in appeal. The
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass an order on
25/09/2019, considering the fact that once the
Appellate Court has stayed the order of operation of
certificate, succession then it is not permissible to
release the amount of P.F. and gratuity in favour of
the respondents No.2 &3 and also directed to dispose
the matter on merits within 3 months from the date of
receipt of the order. That order was received on

Page 13 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

03/10/2019. At that with my time the matter was
pending colleague, Mr.H.A. Trivedi to 5th Add.
District this Court on Judge Junagadh and on expiry
of stipulated time period laid down by the Hon'ble
High Court, matter was transferred 09/01/2020.
After that, at the time of argument on 19/03/2020,
attention of this Court was drawn towards the
direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court in
Sp.Civil App.No.10262/2018. Subsequently there was
lock-down and on issuance of direction of Hon'ble
High Court on its administrative side vide
26/06/2020, matter was heard with the consent of Ld.
Advocates for the parties. But appellant cannot claim
her status merely on the fact of stay order was passed
in her favor without proving her version.

As the appellant has adduced no documents which
can justify her claim that she is legally wedded wife
of Decd. and pankaj and navin are children of Decd.
Moreover, she has not declared necessary facts in the
appeal memo that where she or whether Decd. was
used to her by resided with Decd. sent any amount
from his salary depositing it in her Bank account. She
has not even clarified why name of Ramdas Dalal is
shown after name of her son Pankaj in xerox copy
Ration Card at Mark-8/7. It transpires from the
record i.e. Mark-8/2 that after the death of Decd. for
the first time, she claimed herself to be her letter
dated 22/06/2016. wife of Decd.vide (Said letter not
is adduced on of record by appellant) It is not the say
of the appellant that she has physically approached
respondent No.4 but It also that letter was sent by
the post. transpires from Exh.-30 of C.M.A. that prior
to claim of appellant, respondent No.1 has claimed
the retirement benefits before respondent No.4 and
office order to proceed the pension papers in ordered
on favour of the respondent No.1 Dt.22/6/2016 by
Principal and Dean, Veterinary in College, Agriculture
University, Junagadh, which respondent No.1 was
shown as wife of Decd.as per the service
record/service book of Decd. Was wife On claim of
present appellant that she is of Decd. vide her letter

Page 14 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

dated 22/06/2016, without any supportive documents
or by the before respondent No.4(as no such
documents are even no.4 adduced by repondent.
appellant in this appeal except the documents which
are discussed earlier), though respondent No.1 was
appointed as nominee and declared as wife by
Decd.himself, respondent No.4 has stopped the
process of pension papers and releasing the amount
in favour of nominee/respondent no.1 and issued
letter to both respondent No.1 and appellant vide
letter No.JAU/JV/A-1/3606-3608/16 dated
29/07/2016 asked and for succession certificate. On
receiving that letter, though respondent No.1 was
appointed as nominee and she was declared as wife
by Decd. himself in his service record then also
respondent No.1 has applied for succession
certificate before Senior Civil Court, Junagadh as per
Sec.371 of Indian Succession Act because Decd. was
residing at Junagadh till his death since 30 years and
dues in respect of which succession certificate asked
was with respondent allowing no.4 at application the
for Junagadh. On succession certificate in favour of
respondent No.1, 4 Additional Senior Civil Court,
Junagadh, has intimated that fact to respondent No.4
vide its letter bearing outward No.2034/2016 dated
25/10/2016 and same was received by authorized
employee 1.e. Assistant Administrative Officer,
Science College of and Agriculture Agriculture
University, Junagadh on 26/10/2016. As per the
provision of Nomination Act, 1985, and time and
again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the
ratio in the settling of legal principle that nominee
only hold the estate on behalf of the legal heirs of
deceased and said nomination does not amount to
declaration of heirship. However many a times,
succession leads to mis-understanding when nominee
and legal heir and the same, just like in the both are
one declared present matter, because Decd.has
respondent No.1 as his legally wedded wife and
respondent Nos.2 and 3 as his children by filing
necessary form of nomination in his record and
appointed them as nominee. Nowhere in his service

Page 15 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

record in his life time Decd.has declared himself
service as married to appellant nor appellant has
adduced any such evidence, while challenging the
succession certificate by way of Here in this matter,
Decd.has this appeal. appointed respondent No.1 as
nominee who herself is the wife of Decd.and second
nominee children of Decd. There is no reason for
Senior Civil Court to discard these facts while
allowing the succession certificate as nominee are
also class I heir of Decd.as per Hindu Succession Act
and rightly issued the succession has he certificate in
favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and not committed
any error on appreciation of adduced in the matter
and evidence appreciation of Succession Act.
provision of The in Indian.”

12. It is noticeable therefore, that though the revisionists
have not proceeded to follow the provisions of additional
evidence to be produced at appellate stage contained in
section 41 Rule 27 and 28 of the Code, the learned appellate
Court referred to the documents produced by the revisionists
and believed that none of the documents could establish any
support to the claim of the revisionists. In these detailed
analysis, the learned appellate Court believed that the
revisionist No.1 failed to prove that she is legally wedded wife
of the deceased and two sons, who are claimed to be sons of
the deceased, are failed to establish that they are the children
born out of marriage between the revisionist wife and the
deceased. In that circumstances, merely on words, it cannot
be believed that the revisionist No.1 and her two sons are the
legal heirs of the deceased.

13. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code has to be followed if
appellant is intended to bring evidence on record at appellate

Page 16 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

stage, otherwise, it is not the business of the Appellate Court
to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other
in the lower Court and in absence of satisfactory reasons for
the non- production of the evidence in the trial court,
additional evidence, generally is not to be permitted in appeal.

14. At this juncture, let refer judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Union Of India Versus Ibrahim Uddin,
2012 (8) SCC 148, wherein in para 39, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held as under:-

“39. It is not the business of the Appellate Court to
supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the
other in the lower Court. Hence, in the absence of
satisfactory reasons for the non- production of the
evidence in the trial court, additional evidence should
not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of
remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the
indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence
under this rule. So a party who had ample opportunity
to produce certain evidence in the lower court but
failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it
admitted in appeal. (Vide: State of U.P. V/s.
Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912; and S.
Rajagopal V/s. C.M. Armugam & Ors., AIR 1969 SC
101). “

15. In the aforesaid circumstances, the argument of learned
advocate Mr. Shelat that the learned appellate Court has not
considered the documents produced by the revisionists failed
to conceive and stand.

16. It is an admitted position that in service book of the
deceased, original petitioner No.1 was appointed as nominee.

Page 17 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

Subsequent to cancellation of nomination of mother of the
deceased. In other words, rstly, mother of the deceased was
nominated as nominee, but subsequently, as the deceased
contracted marriage with original petitioner No.1, her name
was replaced as nominee in the service records of the
deceased. Rule 85 of the Gujarat Civil Services Pension Rules,
2002 provides for nomination, which reads as under:-

“85. Nominations :

(1) A Government employee shall, on his initial
appointment in a service or post, make a nomination
in forms as prescribed by the Government and as may
be appropriate in the circumstances of the case,
conferring on one or more persons the right to receive
the death-cum-retirement gratuity payable under rule-
81.

Provided that if at the time of making the nomination

(i) the Government employee has a family members
from Group-1 referred to in rule-82, the nomination
shall not be in favour of any person or persons other
than the members of his family of the said group; or

(ii) the Government employee has no member of the
family from Group-1 referred to in rule-82, the
nomination may be made in favour of a member of
family from Group-2 failing which in favour of a
person or persons, or a body of individuals, whether
incorporated or not.

Explanation: For the purpose of convenience the
nomination forms are laid down and issued by
Government vide Finance Department Government
Resolution No. DPP/1099/496/945 (4)/P. Dated 23-6-
2000.

(2) If a Government employee nominates more than
one person under sub- rule (1), he shall specify in the

Page 18 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

nomination the amount of share payable to each of
the nominees in such manner as to cover the entire
amount of gratuity.

(3) A Government employee may provide in the
nomination

(i) that in respect of any speci=ed nominee who dies
before the death of Government employee, or who
dies after the death of the Government employee but
before receiving the payment of gratuity, the right
conferred on that nominee shall pass to such other
person as may be speci=ed in the nomination:

Provided that if at the time of making the nomination
the Government employee has a family consisting of
more than one member, the person so speci=ed shall
not be a person other than a member of his family:

(ii) that the nomination shall become invalid in the
event of the happening of the contingency provided
therein.

(4) The nomination made by a Government employee
in favour of a member of the family from Group-2
referred to in rule-82, who has no family member of
Group-1 at the time of making it, shall become invalid
in the event of the Government employee
subsequently acquiring a family from Group-1 or an
additional member in the family from the said group
as the case may be.

(5) The nomination made by a Government employee
under proviso (ii) to rule-85 (1) in favour of a person
or persons who are not the members of family from
Group-1 or 2 referred to in rule-82 at the time of
making it, shall become invalid in the event of the
Government employee subsequently acquiring a
member of family from either Group-1 or 2 or an
additional member in the family from the said groups
as the case may be.

(6) A Government employee may, at any time, cancel a

Page 19 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

nomination by sending a notice in writing to the Head
of O@ice in case he is a non-Gazetted Government
employee, to the Head of Department if he is a
Gazetted O@icer and to the Pay and Accounts O@icer
if he is a Head of Department

Provided that he shall along with such notice, send a
fresh nomination made in accordance with this rule.

(7) Immediately on the death of a nominee in respect
of whom no special provision has been made in the
nomination under clause (i) of sub-rule (3) or on the
occurrence of any event by reason of which the
nomination becomes invalid in pursuance of clause (ii)
of that sub-rule, the Government employee shall send
to the Head of O@ice, a notice in writing cancelling
the nomination together with a fresh nomination
made in accordance with this rule.

(8)

(a) Every nomination made (including every notice of
cancellation, if any, given) by a Government employee
under this rule shall be sent

(i) if the Government employee is Gazetted O@icer to
the Head of Department concerned; and

(ii) if the Government o@icer is the Head of
Department to the Pay & Accounts O@icer,
Gandhinagar.

(iii) in any other case, to the Head of O@ice.

(b) The Head of Department or Head of O@ice or the
Pay and Accounts O@icer, as the case may be, shall,
immediately on receipt of the nomination referred to
in clause (a), countersign it indicating the date of
receipt and keep it under his custody.

(c)

(i) The Head of O@ice may authorise his subordinate

Page 20 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

Gazetted O@icers to countersign the nomination forms
of Non-gazetted Government employees

(ii) Suitable entry regarding receipt of nomination
shall be made in the service book of the Government
employee.

(9) Every nomination made, and every notice of
cancellation given, by a Government employee shall,
to the extent that it is valid, take e@ect from the date
on which it is received by the Head of Department /
Head of O@ice or Pay and Accounts O@icer as the case
may be.”

17. Thus, nomination can be made in favour of family
member from group No.1. Generally, pension is service
bene t has to be paid to the nominee in view of Rule 82 and
83 of the Rules. The scheme of the Rules therefore, provides
that if any employee has nominated a person to be his
nominee for receiving death-cum-retirement bene ts, he is
presumed to be fallen in group 1, which is de ned in section
82 of the Rules. In the present case, nomination of the
original petitioner No.1 was not questioned by the revisionists
till date. Ordinarily, the respondent University pays
retirement bene ts to a family member de ned in group 1 in
Rule 82 of the Rules. The respondent University shall pay the
family bene ts or post-retirement -cum-death bene ts to the
nominee. In the present case, the respondent University
insisted for issuance of succession certi cate. The learned
trial Court after following procedure laid down in section 373
of the Act, granted succession certi cate in favour of the
original petitioners.

18. At this juncture, let us have worthy glance of Section

Page 21 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

373(3) of the Act:-

“373(3)Procedure on application-If the judge cannot
decide the right to the certi=cate without determining
questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate
and di@icult for determination in a summary
proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certi=cate to
the applicant if he appears to be the person having
prima facie the best title thereto.”

19. In view of section 373(3) of the Act, even if judge sitting
in testamentary jurisdiction cannot decide the right to the
certi cate without determining questions of law or fact which
seem to be too intricate and diEicult for determination in a
summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certi cate
to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima
facie the best title thereto. In the present case, undisputedly,
the original petitioner No.1 was nominee of the deceased, her
name is reCected in the service records and therefore,
nevertheless, dispute raised by the revisionists, in view of
section 373(3) of the Act since she holds prima facie best title
thereto to get succession certi cate, according to this Court,
the learned Courts below have not committed any error much
less error of understanding the facts or law, which permits
this Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction.

20. In Banarsi Dass Vs. Teeku Dutta, (2005) 4 SCC 449,
the Hon’ble Apex Court carved down the main object of
succession certi cate and held that issues of succession
certi cate is to facilitate collections of debts on succession
and aEord protection to the parties paying debts to
representatives of the deceased person. Such certi cate does

Page 22 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

not give any general power of administration on the estate of
the deceased nor establish title to the grantee as the heirs of
the deceased, but only furnishes him with authority to collect
his debts and allows the debtors to make payments to him
without incurring any risk.

21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in another judgment in case of
Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma Vs, Kunjikutty Pillai
Meenakshi Pillai, (2000) 6 SCC 301, held that grant of
succession certi cate would not operate as res judicata to the
suit for partition led in the civil Court between the same
parties because to grant or not to grant succession certi cate
is wholly summary proceedings on the prima facie view of the
matter. In other words, grant of succession certi cate is only
a determination of prima facie title and not a nal decision
between the parties.

22. As per section 381 of the Act, succession certi cate
merely aEords full indemnity to the debtor for the payments
he makes to the person holding such certi cate. So, he may
not be later dragged into the litigation which may arise
subsequently inter se between the parties claiming title or
right in the properties of the deceased. Thus, reasonings in
the proceedings under the Act are not nal but statute
recognizes such payment to be in good faith in favour of
holder of certi cate. Thus, issue of succession certi cate can
yet to be questioned in subsequent proceedings and it may be
held to belong to other claimant, including the contesting
party, as proceeding falling under part X in the Act range
whereof is between section 370 to 390 will not bar the same

Page 23 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

question to be adjudicated in other subsequent title suits.

23. The Calcutta High Court in case of Sandhya Banerjee
Vs. Shyama Banerjee (2010) SCC Online Calcutta 1355,
held that succession certi cate can be granted in favour of
any person, may be a heir or a nominee. By reason of
granting such succession certi cate, a person in whose
favour, it is granted, becomes a trustee to distribute the
amount payable by the deceased to his heirs and legal
representatives, but it does not derive any right thereunder.
Thus, succession certi cate merely enables him to collect the
dues of the deceased and no status is conferred by the grantee
thereby. Granting of succession certi cate does not
necessarily prove any relation between the deceased and the
applicant.

24. Thus, issue of succession certi cate in favour of original
petitioners does not forfeit proprietary right of the
revisionists.

25. Applying the aforestated ratio decidendi in the aforesaid
case, the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Shelat
does not sound germane and deserves to be struck down and
accordingly, it is rejected.

26. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the judgments relied
upon by learned advocate Mr. KV Shelat has rendered no help
to the case of the petitioners.

27. Resultantly, the petition sans merit and accordingly, it is

Page 24 of 25
C/CRA/146/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2026

rejected. Notice discharged. Interim relief granted earlier
stands vacated.

28. Consequently, CA, if any, does not survive and stands
disposed of accordingly.

29. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
the concerned Court forthwith.

(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE

FURTHER ORDER

After pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate
Mr. KV Shelat appearing for the revisionists requests the
Court to stay implementation, operation and execution of the
judgment so as to enable him to approach higher forum. The
request is refused.

(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 22/01/2026 16:12:26

Page 25 of 25