Holding

The respondent was ineligible for compassionate appointment as he failed to prove a valid adoption, and the cancellation of his appointment was upheld.

Summary

The deceased headmaster of a government school died intestate, leaving his brother and nephew as natural heirs. The nephew, Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, applied for a compassionate appointment claiming to be the deceased's adopted son, supported by an unregistered deed of adoption and a succession certificate. The Joint Director rejected the application, but the Deputy Director later granted the appointment, which was subsequently cancelled. The State Administrative Tribunal dismissed the nephew's challenge, and the High Court reversed that decision, holding the adoption documents proved his claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the nephew failed to prove a valid adoption, the unregistered deed did not carry statutory presumption, and the burden of proof under Evidence Act s.106 rested on him. Consequently, the compassionate appointment was deemed ineligible, the cancellation upheld, and the High Court judgment set aside.

Issues considered

The respondent's eligibility for a compassionate appointment as an adopted son of the deceased employee.
Whether an unregistered deed of adoption suffices to establish a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The allocation of the burden of proof to the respondent under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, were required to be observed in cancelling the appointment.
The constitutional validity of granting compassionate appointments as an exception to the equality principle under Articles 14 and 16.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956s. 16
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 106

Subjects

compassionate appointmentadoptionsuccession certificatenatural justiceequalityservice lawfraudburden of proofevidence actHindu Adoption Actconstitutional law

Judgment

(2009] 7 S.C.R. 1016

A STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. •
1.

-
V.
DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR
Civil Appeal No. 3242 of 2009

MAY 5, 2009
8
[S. B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Service Law - Compassionate appointment - Claim for
- By nephew of deceased employee - On the ground that he
was his adopted son - Denied by Joint Director- Later granted
c by Dep'Uty Director - However, appointment order cancelled
- Cancellation upheld by State Administrative Tribunal - In
writ petition High Court holding that the claim was supported
by Adoption Deed and Succession Certificate - On appeal,
held: Claimant was ineligible for grant of compassionate
D appointment - Such appointment being an exception to
constitutional scheme of equality, cannot be granted in routine ,.
manner - Claimant not able to discharge the burden to prove l
his status as adopted son - Deed of adoption not being
registered, did not carry with it presumption ul/s. 16 of Hindu
E Adoption and Maintenance Act - Claimant was only an heir
or legal representative of deceasecJ. employee - Claimant
having obtained appointment, concealing the facts of its earlier
rejection by higher authority, committed fraud on the
Department as well as on Constitution - Therefore, for
cancellation, principles of natural justice were not required to
F
be complied with - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106 - Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - s. 16 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Doctrines/Principles -
Principle of natural justice - Audi a/terem partem.

G After death of 'C' (A head master of a government
school), respondent (his nephew) and respondent's father
were granted succession certificate. The deceased +
employee was unmarried and had not made any nomina-
tion with regard to his provident fund and other dues.
H 1016
STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. V. 1017
DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR

•~ Respondent fifed an application for his appointment A
on compassionate ground on the basis that he was the

- adopted son of the deceased employee. The application
was rejected by the Joint Director (Education). Thereafter,
by order of Depute Director (Education), he was appointed
on compassionate ground. However, the said. offer of 8
appointment was later cancelled.
Respondent filed original application before State
.
~ Administrative Tribunal questioning the cancellation order
contending inter alia that the order was passed without
J hearing him and thus, was voilative of principles of natural c
justice. The application was dismissed. Writ petition there-
against was allowed by High Court holding that his case
was supported by Deed of Adoption as well as Succession
Certificate. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the court D
• HELD: 1.1 The deceased employee was the Head
_,
Master of a Government School. He did not file any
nomination in respect of his statutory dues. As he was
unmarried, his brother and the respondent were his
natural heirs. Application for grant of succession E
certificate was not filed by the respondent alone. It was
filed jointly by him and his father. Had the respondent been
his adopted son, he would have claimed a succession
certificate only on that basis. His natural father could not
-(
have been arrayed as an applicant. No joint succession F
certificate, thus, could have been applied for and granted.
In the application for grant of the Succession Certificate,
the respondent did not make any averment that he was
~
adopted by the deceased employee. [Paras 3 and 12]
[1021-F; 1024-G-H; 1025-A]
G
1.2 A succession certificate can be granted in favour
_}-
of any person. It may be granted to an heir or a nominee.
By reason of grant of such certificate, a person in whose
favour succession certificate is granted becomes a
trustee to distribute the amount payable to the deceased H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A to his heirs and legal representatives. He does not derive .. •
any right thereunder. The succession certificate merely
enabled him to collect the dues of the deceased. No status
was conferred on him thereby. It did not prove any
relationship between the deceased and the applicant.
B Even otherwise, the respondent and his father were
entitled to the said dues being his heirs and legal
representatives. [Para 23] [1029-G-H; 103.0-A-B]
,._
1.3 In the marksheet of the High School Examination
of the respondent name of his natural father was shown.
c Similar endorsement has been made in the marksheet in
his Higher Secondary Examination. Even the Principal of
't

-
the school while forwarding the respondent's application
for payment of dues of the deceased employee did not
state that the respondent was his adopted son. [Paras 13
....
D and 14] [1025-B-C]
•
1.4 The purported deed of adoption was not a
.f
registered one. It, therefore, did not carry with it a
presumption as envisaged under Section 16 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It may be correct
E that for the purpose of proving that the respondent was
adopted son of the deceased, a registered deed of
adoption was not imperative in character, but then, he was
required to prove that Datta Homan ceremony or
compliance of the other statutory conditions for a. valid .~

F adoption had taken place. [Para 18] [1027-D-G]
1.5 In terms of Section 106 of Evidence Act, the
respondent having special knowledge in regard thereto,
the burden of proving the fact that he was adopted by the
deceased employee was on him. He did not furnish any
G
evidence in that behalf. Even the records clearly show to
the contrary. [Para 18] [1029-G-H; 1028-A] ~

1.6 The very fact that the respondent had filed an
application for grant of succession certificate along with
H his father, showing themselves to be the heirs and legal
STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. V. 1019
DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR
, representatives of the deceased, is itself sufficient proof A
~
to show that he did not claim any benefit in regard to the
debts of the deceased as his adopted son or otherwise.
:"' (Para 24] (1029-G-H; 1030-A-B]
2.1 Appointment on compassionate ground is an
exception to the constitutionar scheme of equality as B
adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. Nobody can claim appointment by way of
inheritance. [Para 15] [1025-D]
t'
-· Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudad Das and Ors.
2008 (15) SCALE 39; l.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi
c
(2007) 6 SCC 162; Mohan Mahto v. Central Coal Field Ltd.

- and Ors. (2007) 8 sec 549 - relied on.
2.2 Appointment on compassionate ground should
not be granted as a matter of course. It should be granted D
'I' oply when dependants of the deceased employee who
i expired all of a sudden while being in service and by
reason thereof his dependants have been living in penury.
[Para 17] (1026-G-H)
3.1 Principle of natural justice although is required E
to be compiled with, it has exceptions. In the instant case,
respondent, keeping in view the constitutional scheme
has not only committed a fraud on the Department but also
committed a fraud on the Constitution. As commission of
fraud by him has categorically been proved, the principles F
of natural justice were not required to be complied with.
Fraud, as is well known, vitiates all solemn acts. [Paras
19,.21 and 22) [1028-B; 1029-B-C, E]
V C., Banaras Hindu University and Ors. v. Shrikant
G
(2006) 11 SCC 42; S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and Ors. (1980)
,t-
4 SCC 379; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors.
(2003) 8 SCC 319; Tanna and Modi v. CIT, Mumbai XXV and
Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 434; Rani Aloka Dudhoria and Ors. v.
Gautam Dudhoria and Ors. JT 2009 (3) SC 616 - relied on:·
H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A lnderpreet Singh Kah/on and Ors. v. State of Punjab and ~
'
Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 356; Mohd. Sartaj and Anr v. State of UP
and Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 315; Jaswant Singh and Ors. v. State
of M.P and Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 700; State of M.P and Ors. v.
Shyama Pardhi and Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 118 - distinguished.
B 3.2 Legality of grant of a valid appointment was
dependant upon the proof that the respondent was the
adopted son of the deceased employee. He not only failed
to do so, the materials brought on record by the parties •
would clearly suggest otherwise. His application for grant
c of appointment on compassionate ground was rejected
by the· Joint Director of Education. He did not question
~

·-
the legality or validity thereof. He, by suppressing the said
fact obtained the offer of appointment from an authority ......
which was lower in rank than the Joint Director, viz., the
D Deputy Director. When such a fact was brought to the
notice of the Deputy Director that the offer of appointment
had been obtained as a result of fraud practiced on the
Department, he could, cancel the same. [Para 21) [1028-
•
G-H; 1029-A-B]
E Case Law Reference
2008 (15) SCALE 39 Relied on para 15
2001 (6) sec 162 Relied on. Para 16

F 2001 (8) sec 549 Relied on. Para 16
2006 c11) sec 42 Relied on. Para 19
1980 (4) sec 379 Relied on. Para 20
2006 (11) sec 356 Distinguished. Para 22
G
2006 (2) sec 315 Distinguished. Para 22 ..t,
2002 (9) sec 100 Distinguished. Para 22
1996 (7) sec 118 Distinguished. Para 22
H 2003 (8) sec 319 Relied on. Para 22
STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. V. 1021
DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR
,. 2001 (7) sec 434 Relied on. Para 22 A
Ji

-
JT 2009 (3) SC 616 Relied on. Para 22
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3242
of 2009
.J From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2006 of the B
(

High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No. 702
of 2001

Atul Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, for the Appellant(s).
i'
Raj Kumar Gupta, Sunil Kumar Gupta (for Praveen c
Chaturvedi), for the Respondent(s).

- •
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted .
D

-. 2. One Chittaranjan Singh Sengar (since deceased) was
posted as Head Master of a Government School, Baradwar,
Dist-Champa, Janjgir, Chhattisgarh. He was unmarried.
Respondent's father G.S. Sengarwas his brother. Respondent E
and his father applied for grant of a succession certificate before
the Civil Judge, Class I, Distt. Janjgir. The said application was
allowed by an order dated 15.01.1996 passed by Civil Judge,
Class I, Janjgir.
3. In the said application for grant of the said succession F
certificate, the respondent did not make any averment that he
was adopted by the said Chittaranjan Singh Sengar.
....
4. Indisputably, Chittaranjan Singh Sengar did not make
any nomination in regard to his provident fund and other dues. G
The said succession certificate was produced before the Deputy
":' ~ Director (Education) who noticed:
"Legal succession certificate of Shri Dheeraj Kumar
Sengar S/o Shri Ganesh Singh Sengar, legal heirs of Late
Shri Chittaranjan Singh Sengar, Rio Village - Latia, Tahsil H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

_.
A - Janjgeer Bilaspur is forwarded for information and ,k.
implementation. They produce his original certificate
regarding qualification before concerned block/ principal
for his observation."

5. Respondent filed an application for appointment on
-
B compassionate ground. The said application was rejected by
the Joint Director Education Division, Bilaspur.

6. However, despite the fact that his application for grant
of compassionate appointment was rejected by the Joint i
c Director, a purported order of compassionate appointment
came to be passed in his favour by the Deputy Director
(Education). The said offer of appointment, however, was
cancelled by an order dated 9.06.1997, stating:
"On the basis of above reference and in absence of Legal
....
D Succession Letter your compassionate appointment order
No. 731/Estab-1/Comp.Appoint Endorse No. 96-97 has •
been rejected from the current effect." .-
7. Respondent filed an Original Application before the
Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal questioning the validity
E
of the said order dated 9.06.1997, which by reason of an order
dated 5.06.2000 was dismissed, holding:

"10. When anyone claims compassionate appointment on
the basis of adoption, he should prove fully that he was
F validly adopted. The applicant has failed in discharging
the burden. It has to be remembered that instructions about
compassionate appointment have to be interpreted strictly
because such appointments amount to a dilution of Article
14 and 16 of the Constitution."
G 8. Before the learned Tribunal, a contention as regards
breach uf the principles of natural justice was raised. The learned ~ ....
Tribunal answered the said contention in the following words :
"12. The applicant argues that no show cause notice was
given to him. This argument has no force. The Supreme
H
STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. V. 1023
DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]
~
). Court has held in State of M.P. Vs. Shyama Padhi (AIR A
1996 Supreme Court 2219) and S. Mohan Vs. Govt. of
Tamil Nadu (1998 sec (L&S) 1231, that no show cause
notice is necessary in cases of illegal appointments. The
Supreme Court has also upheld the concept of post
decisional hearing in Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs. Union of B
India (1991 (1) SCC 658). The applicant was fully heard
by the Tribunal. He could not prove beyond doubt that he
was validly appointed. The Supreme Court has observed
~ as follows in the Board of Mining Examination Vs. Ramjee
(1977 (2) sec 256): c
"Natural Justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine
nor a judicial cure all. If fairness is shown by the decision
maker to the man proceeded against, the form, essential
procedural propriety being conditioned by the facts and
circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural D
l
justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of
... natural justice without reference to the administrative
realities and other factors of a given case can be
exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but
should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction." E
9. A writ petition was preferred thereagainst by the
-! respondent, which by reason of the impugned judgment and
order dated 13.09.2006 has been allowed, stating:
~
" ... The impugned order itself would disclose that in support F
of his case, the petitioner has produced not only the deed
of adoption as Annexure A-1 but also Succession
~ Certificate issued by the competent Court of law as
Annexure A-2. It seems to our mind that learned Tribunal
had not applied its mind to the Succession Certificate
G
issued by the competent court of law as Annexure A-2. It
.... 1-
seems to our mind that learned Tribunal had not applied
its mind to the Succession Certificate issued by the
competent court of law. It is needless to state that the
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to question the correctness of
H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A Succession Certificate Annexure A-2. The deed of

-
l.
adoption and certificate of succession would undeniably
prove that the petitioner is the adopted son of the
deceased Chitaranjan Singh Sengar who died in harness.
It is nobody's case that the petitioner being adopted son
B of the deceased employee is not entitled to seek
appointment on compassionate ground to a suitable post.
If that is the position, the order passed by the department
dateg 19.06.1997, we should say, is ex-facie illegal and
untenable in law." '
~
c 10. Mr. Atul Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants, would contend:

(i) A large number of documents filed before the Tribunal
would in no uncertain terms demonstrate that apart
from production of the purported unregistered deed
D
of adoption which does not carry any statutory •
presumption, respondent has utterly failed to k
establish that he was the adopted son of the said
Chittaranjan Singh Sengar.

E (ii) Grant of succession certificate, by no stretch of
imagination, would be a relevant factor for the
purpose of determination of the question as to
whether the adoption was valid or not.
..
11. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on "'-
F behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, urged that as the
appointment had been granted on compassionate ground, which
having been cancelled without observing the requirements of
the principles of natural justice, the same cannot be sustained.
12. Chittaranjan Singh Sengar was the Head Master of a
G
Government School. He did not file any nomination in respect ./- '
of his statutory dues. As he was unmarried, his brother and the
respondent were his natural heirs. Application for grant of
succession certificate was not filed by the respondent alone. It
was filed jointly by him and his father. Had the respondent been
H
STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. V. 1025
DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]

.• ;J, his adopted son, he would have claimed a succession certificate A
only on that basis. His natural father G.S. Sengar could not have
been arrayed as an applicant. No joint succession certificate,
thus, could have been applied for and granted.

13. Various other documents have also been brought on
record. It appears from the marksheet of the High School B
Examination of the respondent that his father's name was shown
as Ganesh Singh Sengar. Similar endorsement has been made
in the marksheet in his Higher Secondary Examination.
'~
14. Even the Principal of the said school while forwarding c
the respondent's application for payment of dues of Chittaranjan
Singh Sengar did not state that the respondent was his adopted
son.
15. Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception
to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under D
.. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nobody can claim
y appointment by way of inheritance.
In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Madhusudan Das and
Ors. [2008 (15) SCALE 39], this Court held:
E
" ... This Court in a large number of decisions has held that
the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. It must be provided for in the
... rules. The criteria laid down therefor, viz., that the death of
the sole bread earner of the family, must be established. F
It is meant to provide for a minimum relief. When such
contentions are raised, the constitutional philosophy of
equality behind making such a scheme be taken into
consideration. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India mandate that all eligible candidates should be
G
considered for appointment in the posts which have fallen
_...\
vacant. Appointment on compassionate ground offered to
a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception to
the said rule. It is a concession, not a right."
16. Th is Court in I. G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
-
A [(2007) 6 sec 162] carved out an exception to the ordinary ).

rule of recruitment, stating:

"6. An employee of a State enjoys a status. Recruitment of
...
employees of the State'is governed by the rules framed
under a statute or the proviso appended to Article 309 of
B the Constitution of India. In the matter of appointment, the
State is obligated to give effect to the constitutional scheme
of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. All appointments, therefore, must '
~
conform to the said constitutional scheme. This Court,
c however, while laying emphasis on the said proposition
carved out an exception in favour of the children or other
relatives of the officer who dies or who becomes
incapacitated while rendering services in the Police
Department.
D
7. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in ;

terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on ~
descent. When such an exception has been carved out by
this Court, the same must be strictly complied with.
Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for
E meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the
family by reason of the death of the breadearner. When an
appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should
be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve,
~
the idea being not to provide for endless compassion."
F
[See also Mohan Mahto v. Central Coal Field Ltd. and
Ors. (2007) a sec 549]
17. This Court, times without number, has held that
appointment on compassionate ground should not be granted
G as a matter of course. It should be granted only when dependants
of the deceased employee who expired all of a sudden while ~
-
being in service and by reason thereof his dependants have
been living in penury.
The Government of Madhya Pradesh had adopted a
H
STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. V. 1027
DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR [S.B. SINHA, J.]
,
;( scheme for appointment on compassionate ground which was A
circulated to all concerned in terms of a letter dated 10.06.1994,
stating:
-!
"If any government servant dies in harness then either his
widow or his legal children (which inCludes the step son/
daughter also) would be made available service. Service B
wouldn't be made available to any other member or
relative."
'I The nephew of the deceased employee, therefore, was
ineligible for grant of such appointment. c
18. Appointment, however, was offered to the respondent
without taking into consideration that he had not been able to
establish his relationship with the deceased or that he was in
fact totally dependant on him.
.. D
The purported deed of adoption was not a registered one .
It, therefore, did not carry with it a presumption as envisaged
" under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956.
The adoption was purported to have been recorded on a E
stamp paper of Rs. 2/-.

We have noticed hereinbefore that in the application for
grant of succession certificate, G.S. Sengar was described as
.;
his father. Even in the marksheets which had been drawn up on
the basis of the record maintained in the school in which he F
• was studying, his father's name was G.S. Sengar. It may be
correct that for the purpose of proving that the respondent was
adopted son of the deceased, a registered deed of adoption
was not imperative in character, but then, he was required to
prove that datta homan ceremony or compliance of the other. G
~-I statutory conditions for a valid adoption had taken place.
__,
In terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the
respondent having special knowledge in regard thereto, the
·'
I burden of proving the fact that he was adopted by Chittaranjan
H
f-

1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.

A Singh Sengar was on him. He did not furnish--any evidence in ).
that behalf. Even the records clearly show to the contrary.
19. It is in the aforementioned premise, the contention in
regard to the breach of audi alteram partem doctrine must be
considered.
B
Principle of natural justice although is required to be
complied with, it, as is well-known, has exceptions. [See VG.,
Banaras Hindu University and Others v. Shrikant (2006) 11
sec 42] .\'
c 20. One of the exceptions has also been laid down in S.L.
Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others [(1980) 4 SCC 379: AIR 1981
SC 136] wherein it was held:
"In our view the principles of natural justice know of no
exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have
D
made any difference if natural justice had been observed.
The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to
•
,;.
any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of
denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes from a
person who has denied justice that the person who has
E been denied justice is not prejudiced. As we said earlier
where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one
conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty
is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel
the observance of natural justice, not because it is not •
F necessa[Y to observe natural justice but because courts
do not issue futile writs." "
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Legality of grant of a valid appointment was dependant
G upon the proof that the respondent was the adopted son of
Chittaranjan Singh Sengar. He not only failed to do so, the !--
materials brought on record by the parties would clearly suggest .,_
otherwise. His application for grant of appointment on
compassionate ground was rejected by the Joint Director of
H Education. He did not ·question the legality or validity thereof.
STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. V. 1029
DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR [S.B. SINHA, J]
). He, it can safely be said, by suppressing the said fact obtained A
the offer of appointment from an authority which was lower in
rank than the Joint Director, viz., the Deputy Director. When such'
a fact was brought to the notice of the Deputy Director that the
offer of appointment had been obtained as, a result of fraud
practiced on the Department, he could, in our opinion, cancel B
the same.
Respondent keeping in view the constitutional scheme has
~
not only committed a fraud on the Departmerit but also committed
l
a fraud on the Constitution. As commission of fraud by him has
categorically been proved, in our opinion, the principles of natural c
justice were not required to be complied with.
22. Mr. Gupta has relied upon a large number of decisions
of this Court, viz., lnderpreet Singh Kah/on and Others v. State
of Punjab and Others [(2006) 11 SCC 356], Mohd. Sartaj and
D
• Anotherv. State ofU.P and Others [(2006) 2 SCC 315], Jaswant
i.. Singh and Others v. State of M.P and Others (2002) 9 SCC
700 and State of M.P and Others v. Shyama Pardhi and Others
[(1996) 7 sec 118] to contend that audi a/teram 'partem
doctrine should have been complied with. In these cases,
requirement to comply with the principles of natural justice has E
'.been emphasized. The legal principles carved out therein are
unexceptional. But, in this case, we are concerned with a case

"'"'
' '""'\
offraud. Fraud, as is well known, vitiates all solemn acts. [See
Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Others (2003) 8 SCC
319, Tanna & Modi v. CIT, Mumbai XXV and Others (2007) 7 F
-- SCC 434 and Rani A/aka Dudhoria and others v. Gautam
o&d.fJpria and others [JT 2009 (3) SC 616]
23. ·The High Court, therefore, must be held to have
committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment. G
~ A succession' certificate can be granted in favour of any
person. It may be granted to an heir or a nominee. By reason of
grant of such certificate, ..a· person in whose favour succession
certificate is granted becorrtes a trustee to distribute the amount
payable to the deceased to his heirs and legal representatives. H
\
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S. C.R.

A He does not derive any right thereunder. The succession ).

certificate merely enabled him to collect the dues of the
deceased. No status was conferred on him thereby. It did not
prove any relationship between the deceased and the applicant.
Even otherwise, the respondent and his father were entitled to
B the said dues being his heirs and legal representatives.

24. The very fact that the respondent had filed an
application for grant of succession certificate along with his
father, showing themselves to be the heirs and legal y

~
representatives of the deceased, is itself sufficient proof to show
c that he did not claim any benefit in regard to the debts of the
deceased as his adopted son or otherwise.
25. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly.
The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at
D
Rs. 10,000/-. •
)
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.

./'
'

•......
-