Supreme Court of India
VIDYADHARI AND ORSversusSUKHRANA BAI AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 79
- Decided
- 22 January 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
A nominee who is also the mother of the deceased’s legitimate children may be granted a succession certificate under s.372 of the Indian Succession Act, even though the first wife remains the legal widow, provided the nominee holds the first wife’s share in trust for her.
Summary
The case concerned two applications for a succession certificate under s.372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, filed by Vidyadhari (the second wife and nominee) and Sukhrana Bai (the first wife) for the movable assets of the deceased Sheetaldeen, a coal‑field employee. The trial court granted the certificate to Vidyadhari, holding that the first marriage had not been dissolved and that Vidyadhari was the nominee for the deceased’s death benefits and mother of his four legitimate children. The High Court reversed this, granting the certificate to Sukhrana Bai, reasoning that only the legal widow could obtain it. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that while Sukhrana Bai remained the legal widow, Vidyadhari, as a duly nominated nominee and mother of legitimate heirs, could obtain the certificate; the Court directed that Vidyadhari hold Sukhrana Bai’s one‑fifth share in trust and deliver it to her. The appeal was allowed, and the certificate was issued to Vidyadhari with a rider protecting the first wife’s share.
Issues considered
- Whether the first wife, Sukhrana Bai, is the legal widow entitled to a succession certificate under s.372 of the Indian Succession Act.
- Whether the children of the second wife, Vidyadhari, are legitimate heirs despite the subsistence of the first marriage.
- Whether a nominee, who is also the mother of the deceased’s legitimate children, can obtain a succession certificate notwithstanding the existence of a legal widow.
- Whether the High Court erred in granting the certificate exclusively to the first wife without considering the nominee’s rights and the children’s interests.
- Whether a rider protecting the first wife’s share can be imposed while granting the certificate to the nominee.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Succession CertificateNominationLegal widowCustomary divorceLegitimate heirsDiscretionary grantRiderEquityIndian Succession ActSection 372Death benefitsProvident Fund
Judgment
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 1030
VIDYADHARI AND ORS. A
-"'f
II.
SUKHRANA BAI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 575 of 2008)
JANUARY 22, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
'I
Indian Succession Act, 1925:
......
'
s.372 - Nominee - Right of - Claim for grant of
Succession Certificate in respect of movable properties of c
deceased-husband - By first wife and separate claim by
second wife and her children sired by deceased - Claim of
second wife based on nomination in her favour - Trial Court
granted Succession Certificate to the second wife on the
ground that there was divorce between deceased and first wife D
}., and second wife was his legal widow - On appeal, High Court
~,
held that there was no evidence of divorce between first wife
and deceased and granted Succession Certificate to first wife
- Justification of- Held: The fact that second wife was nominee
is proved - A nominee has a right to file application under E
s.372 - Deceased lived with the second wife for 20-25 years
till his death and nominated her for availing death benefits -
Under such circumstances, she was preferable even to legally
wedded wife - High Court was not justified in granting claim of
first wife to the exclusion not only of the nominee of deceased F
d
but also to the exclusion of his legitimate legal heirs -
Therefore accepting the view of High Court that first wife was
legitimate wife, yet, certificate is granted in favour of second
wife who was mother of four children of deceased - To balance
the equities, Succession Certificate is granted with a rider that
G
second wife would protect 115th share offirst wife.
_:,.
'"' One 'S' was working in mines of Western Coalfield.
'SB' was first wife of 'S'. There was no issue out of this
wedlock. 'S' then married 'V'. Two sons and two daughters
1030 H
1031 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A were born to 'V'. 'S' died while in service. Both 'SB' and
'V' filed separate application for obtaining the Succession t-
Certificate with respect to the movable properties of
deceased. It is admitted that 'S' had nominated 'V' to
receive the dues and death benefits. 'V' in her application
B besides herself disclosed names of her children as the
legal heirs of 'S'.
Trial Court held 'V' to be the legal widow of 'S' and y
her children to be legal heirs of 'S' and held 'V' entitled to
grant of the Succession Certificate. The conclusion of Trial
.._ >
c Court was based on the opinion that 'S' belonged to the
'Shudra' community and in Shudra community if the wife
deserted her husband and no effort was made by the
husband to take her back as his wife then under Hindu
law it is presumed that divorce had taken place between
D the two. Thus, a finding was given that 'S' had divorced
'SB' and thereafter solemnized second marriage with 'V'
..l_,
and, therefore, the marriage of 'V' was legal. ~
On appeal, High Court held that there was no
evidence to hold that customary divorce had taken place
E between 'SB' and 'S' nor was there any pleading about
the factum of any customary divorce or existence of any
custom. Stopping here itself, the High Court directed that
the Succession Certificate should be granted in favour of
'SB'.
F
In appeal to this Court, 'V' contended that while L
granting certificate in favour of 'SB', the claim of four
children was altogether ignored as, admittedly, 'SB' had
sought the certificate for herself alone; and that even if
there was no divorce between 'SB' and 'S' and 'V' was
G
not held to be his legal wife but since the children
admittedly were sired by 'S', they were legitimate children ,f
entitled to inherit 'S'.
Allowing the appeal, _the Court
H
VIDYADHARI AND ORS. v. SUKHRANA BAI AND ORS. 1032
HELD: 1.1 There can be no dispute that 'V' had never A
-''t pleaded any divorce, much less customary divorce
between 'SB' and 'S'. There were no pleadings and hence
no issue arose on that count. Therefore, the High Court
was right in holding that marriage between 'SB' and 'S'
was very much subsisting when 'S' got married to 'V'. B
Unfortunately, the High Court stopped there only and did
not consider the question as to whether inspite of this
'i factual scenario, 'V' could be rendered the Succession
', Certificate. The High Court almost presumed that
Succession Certificate can be applied for only by the c
legally wedded wife to the exclusion of anybody else and
completely ignored the admitted situation that this
Succession Certificate was for the purposes of collecting
the Provident Fund, Life Cover Scheme, Pension and
amount of Life Insurance and amount of other dues in
D
the nature of death benefits of deceased. The fact that 'V'
was a nominee is not disputed by anyone and is, therefore
., J- proved. 'V' had claimed the Succession Certificate
mentioning therein the names of four children whose
status as legitimate children of 'S' could not and cannot
be disputed. [Paras 9, 10] [1038-G-H; 1039-E-H] E
Govind Raju v. K. Muni Swami Gonder & Ors. AIR 1997
SC 10; Yamanji H. Jadhav v. Nirma/a (2002) 2 SCC 637 -
distinguished.
Smt. Savitri Devi v. Manorama Bai AIR (1998) MP 114; F
:::+
Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 431
- referred to.
1.2. The law is clear that a nominee like 'V' who was
claiming the death benefits arising out of the employment · G
can always file an application under s.372 of the Indian
~ Succession Act as there is nothing in that provision to
" prevent such a nominee from claiming the certificate on
the basis of nomination. The High Court should have
realised that 'V' was not only a nominee but also was the
H
1033 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 1 S.C.R.
A mother of four children of 'S' who were the legal heirs of
'S' and whose names were also found in Form A which
was the declaration of 'S' during his life-time. In her
application 'V' candidly pointed out the names of the four
children as the legal heirs of 'S'. No doubt that she herself
B has claimed to be a legal heir which status she could not
claim but besides that she had the status of a nominee of
'S'. She continued to stay with 'S' as his wife for long time
y
and was a person of confidence for 'S'; who had
:
nominated her for his Provident Fund, Life Cover Scheme, '
c Pension and amount of Life Insurance and amount of
other dues. Under such circumstances she was always
preferable even to the legally wedded wife like 'SB' who
had never stayed with 'S' as his wife and who had claimed
the Succession Certificate to the exclusion of legal heirs
of 'S'. [Para 10] [1040-C-G]
0
1.3 In the grant of Succession Certificate, the court
has to use its discretion where the rival claims, are made
for the Succession Certificate for the properties of the
deceased. The High Court should have taken into
E consideration these crucial circumstances. Though High
Court was right in holding that 'SB' was the only legitimate
wife yet, the certificate is granted in favour of 'V' who was
his nominee and the mother of his four children. However,
to balance the equities, the Succession Certificate is
F granted to 'V' but with a rider that she would protect the 1/
5th share of 'SB' in 'S' properties and would hand over
the same to her. As the nominee 'V' would hold the 1/5th
share of 'SB' in trust and would be responsible to pay the
same to 'SB'. For this purpose she is directed to give a
G security in the Trial Court to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court. This Court is not in any way, deciding the status of
'V' finally. She may still prosecute her own remedies for )-
establishing her own status independently of these
proceedings. [Paras 10-12] [1040-B-H; 1041-C-F]
H CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 575
VIDYADHARI AND ORS. v. SUKHRANA BAI AND ORS. 1034
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
r -""! of 2008. A
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.9.2006 of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Appeal
Nos. 33 & 43 of 1998
Anuradha Mutatkar and Prakash Shrivastava for the B
Appellants.
'1 Sunita Sharma, Sudha Pal, Subramonium Prasad, Varuna
/' Bhandari Guguani, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal and Sunil Roy
for the Respondents.
c
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. A common judgment of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Jabalpur, disposing of tWo Miscellaneous Appeals
is in challenge before us. The appeals were filed by one
Smt.Sukhrana Bai claiming herself to be the widow of one D
~ Sheetaldeen. Sheetaldeen was working as a CCM Helper in
.-. Mines P.K.1 of the Western Coalfields at Pathakheda and died
on 9.5.1993 while in service. Two sepa·rate applications came
to be filed under Section 372 of the lnd.ian Succession Act for
obtaining succession certificate with respect to the movable E
properties of deceased Sheetaldeen, one of them was filed by
Vidhyadhari registered as Succession Case No.3/96 while the
other came to be filed by Sukhrana Bai which was registered
as Succession Case No.10/95:Both the cases were joined and
tried together by the Trial Court which allowed the application F
..-+
filed by Vidhyadhari (SC No.3/96) and dismissed the one filed
by Sukhrana Bai (SC No.10/95). Sukhrana Bai, therefore, filed
two Miscellaneous Appeals being MA33/1998 and MA43/1998
which came to be allowed by the High Court in favour of
Sukhrana Bai. Vidhyadhari, therefore, is before us in this appeal.
G
Before we proceed with the matter, a factual background would
~
" be necessary.
3. Admittedly, Sukhrana Bai was the first wife of
Sheetaldeen, while during the subsistence of this marriage,
Sheetaldeen got married with Vidhyadhari. Two sons and two H
1035 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R.
A daughters were born to Vidhyadhari, they being Smt.Savitri,
Naresh @ Ramesh, Ms.Chanda @ Durga and Baliram, while
Sukhrana Bai does not have any children.
"'-
4. Vidhyadhari in her application before the Trial Court (SC
No.3/96), besides herself, disclosed the names of her children
B
as the legal heirs of Sheetaldeen. It was also revealed that
deceased Sheetaldeen had nominated her for receiving
amounts under the Provident Fund, Family Pension Scheme
y
and Coal Mines Deposits Life Scheme. She also disclosed that
she has received a sum of Rs.45036/- towards gratuity amount ......
c of the deceased from the employer of Sheetaldeen, i.e., Western
Coalfields Ltd. She, therefore, claimed the Succession
Certificate on the basis of the nominations besides her marriage
with Sheetaldeen.
5. As stated above, both the Succession Cases came to
D
be consolidated and tried together. In SC No.10/95, filed by
Sukhrana Bai, Vidhyadhari raised an objection that Sukhrana
Bai was not the heir of deceased Sheetaldeen and though ..
Sheetaldeen initially nominated Sukhrana Bai to receive the ""'
dues after his death as per Form A, subsequently he cancelled
E that nomination and filled in a second Form A in which he had
nominated Smt.Vidhyadhari and in description of his family
members he had indicated her to be the wife, one Naresh as
his son and Ms.Chanda @ Durga as his daughter. It was also
pointed out that Sukhrana Bai had not claimed any dues from
F the office of Sheetaldeen. WCL which is a party, contended that
L
the non-applicant had no knowledge about the valid marriage
between the deceased and Sukhrana Bai and it was also
admitted that Sheetaldeen had nominated Vidhyadhari to
receive the total amount and had registered her as his nominee.
G Following issues came to be framed by the Trial Court:
"(1) Whether the legal widow of the deceased Sheetaldeen /
i
is the applicant Smt.Sukhrana of Case No.10/95 or
Vidhyadhari of Case No.3/96?
H (2) Whether Smt.Savitri, Naresh aias Ramesh,
VIOYADHARI AND ORS. v. SUKHRANA BAI AND ORS. 1036
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J]
Ms.Chanda alias Ourga and Baliram, as mentioned in the A
application of Case No.3/96 are the children of applicant
Vidhyadhari, sired by deceased Sheetaldeen?
(3) If yes, whether they are the heirs of deceased
Sheetaldeen?
B
(4) For receiving the amount due to deceased
Sheetaldeen, issuance of Succession Certificate in whose
favour would be just and proper?
(5) Relief and expenses?
c
Both oral and documentary evidence was led by both the
parties. Sukhrana Bai examined herself as AW1 along with three
other witnesses, namely, Kanhaiyalal (AW2), Ram Prasad
(AW3) and Shivnath (AW4). On the basis of the evidence led,
the Trial Court held Vidhyadhari to be the legal widow of
0
deceased Sheetaldeen. It was also held that the children
Smt.Savitri, Naresh @ Ramesh, Ms.Chanda @ Durga and
Baliram mentioned in SC No.3/96 were sired by deceased
Sheetaldeen and were his children. They were also held to be
heirs of deceased Sheetaldeen. The Trial Court also held that
the Succession Certificate was liable to be issued in favour of E
Vidhyadhari and not in favour of Sukhrana Bai. In its judgment
the Trial Court referred to an admission made by Vidhyadhari
in her affidavit Exhibit C-7 wherein she had stated on oath that
she is the second wife of Sheetaldeen and Sukhrana Bai was
the first wife. The Trial coljrt also referred to the proved fact that F
Sheetaldeen initially had nominated Sukharana Bai as a
nominee indicating her to be his wife in Form A. After discussing
the voluminous oral evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court
held that Sukhrana Bai was earlier married to Sheetaldeen and
there were no issues out of this wedlock and thereafter G
Sheetaldeen married Vidhyadhari and for about 20 to 25 years
he lived with Vidhyadhari till his death while Sukhrana Bai never
came to stay with him. The observation of the Trial Court in para
18 of the its Judgment is as under:
H
1037 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A "... which means that either Sukhrana Devi deserted him
or Sheetaldeen left her."
The Trial Court then proceeded to hold in Para 19 that
Sheetaldeen belonged to the 'Shudra' community and in Shu<;lra
B community if the wife deserts her husband and no effort is made
by the husband to take her back as his wife then under Hindu
law it is presumed that divorce has taken place between the
two, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Govind Raju
vs. K. Muni Swami Gonder & Ors. [AIR 1997 SC 1O]. A finding
was given that Sheetaldeen had divorced Sukhrana Bai and
C solemnized second marriage with Vidhyadhari and, therefore,
the marriage of Vidhyadhari could not be said to be illegal. On
that basis the Trial Court excluded the claim of Sukhrana Bai
and granted the claim of Vidhyadhari l)olding that she was
entitled to receive the amount of Rs.1,30,000/- from WCL
D towards Sheetaldeen's Provident Fund, Life Cover Scheme,
Pension and amount of Life Insurance and amount of other dues
payable to the successor of Sheetaldeen on his death. It was
also observed in para 23 as under:
".... In that amount, applicant Vidhyadhari and her sons
E and daughters will have equal share. On receipt of the
said amount, applicant Vidhyadhari shall distribute the
amount to her sons and daughters as per their share ..... "
Resultantly the Trial Court dismissed Sukhrana Bai's
F application.
6. The High Court, however, concluded that the theory of
customary divorce between Sukhrana Bai and Sheetaldeen was
a myth. It was noted that there was no evidence on record to
hold that customary divorce had taken place between Sukhrana
G Bai and Sheetaldeen nor was there any pleading about the
factum of any customary divorce or existence of any custom.
Relying on a reported decision in Smt.Savitri Devi v.
Manorama Bai [AIR 1998 MP 114], the High Court came to
the conclusion that the alleged customary divorce between
H Sukhrana Bai and deceased Sheetaldeen was not established.
VIDYADHARI AND ORS. v. SUKHRANA BAI AND ORS. 1038
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
-"1 Stopping here itself, the High Court allowed both the appeals A
and directed that the Succession Certificate should be granted
in favour of Sukhrana Bai.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Vidhyadhari strenuously urged that the High Court could not have
straightaway granted the claim of Sukharana Bai. Learned B
counsel pointed out that in grant of certificate in favour of
-! Sukhranai Bai, the claim of four children was altogether ignored
....' as, admittedly, Sukhrana Bai had sought the certificate for
herself alone. Learned counsel points out that even if the theory
of divorce between Sukhrana Bai and Sheetaldeen is described c
and even if Vidhyadhari is not held to be his legal wife since the
children admittedly were sired by Sheetaldeen, they were
legitimate children entitled to inherit Sheetaldeen. On this point,
. learned counsel relied on Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar
& Ors. [(2000) 2 sec 431]. Learned counsel pointed out that D
'f. in her application Vidhyadhari had specifically mentioned the
" names of four children as the legal heirs besides herself, while
Sukhrana Bai had claimed that she was the only legal heir of
Sheetaldeen. Learned counsel tried to urge, relying on a
reported decision in Yamanji H. Jadhav v. Nirmala [(2002) 2 E
sec 637), that in this case the customary divorce should have
been held to be proved.
8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Sukhrana Bai supported the judgment of the High
A Court and contended that she being the only legal heir of F
deceased Sheetaldeen, she alone was entitled to the grant of
Succession Certificate as ordered by the High Court.
9. There can be no dispute that Vidhyadhari had never
pleaded any divorce, much less customary divorce between
G
Sukhrana Bai and Sheetaldeen. There were no pleadings and
hence no issue arose on that count. In our opinion, therefore,
the High Court was right in holding that marriage between
Sukhrana Bai and Sheetaldeen was very much subsisting wh1:m
Sheetaldeen got married to Vidhyadhari. Learned counsel tried
H
1039 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A to rely on the reported decision in Govind Raju's case (supra). ~-
We are afraid the decision is of no help to the respondent as
basically the issue in that decision was about the legitimacy of
the children born to a mother whose first marriage was not
dissolved and yet she had contracted the second marriage. This
B is apart from the fact that in the present case there were no
pleadings about the existence of custom and alleged divorce
thereunder. Therefore, there was no evidence led on that issue.
In our opinion the decision in Govind Raju's case is not
applicable. Even the other decision in Yamanaji's case is not
c applicable as the facts are entirely different. In Yamanji's case
there was a Deed of Divorce executed by the wife. The question
was whether there was a customary divorce. There was a custom
permitting divorce by executing deed existing in the community
to which the parties belonged. Such is not the situation here.
D There is neither any Divorce Deed nor even the assertion on
the part ofVidhyadhari that Sheetaldeen had divorced Sukhrana ~
Bai. We, therefore, accept the finding of the High Court that
Sukhrana Bai was the legally wedded wife while Vidhyadhar
could not claim that status.
E 10. However, unfortunately, the High Court stopped there
only and did not consider the question as to whether inspite of
this factual scenario Vidhyadhari could be rendered the
Succession Certificate. The High Court almost presumed that
Succession Certificate can be applied for only by the legally
F wedded wife to the exclusion of anybody else. The High Court
completely ignored the admitted situation that this Succession
Certificate was for the purposes of collecting the Provident Fund,
Life Cover Scheme, Pension and amount of Life Insurance and
amount of other dues in the nature of death benefits of
G Sheetaldeen. That Vidhyadhari was a nominee is not disputed
by anyone and is, therefore proved. Vidhyadhari had claimed f
the Succession Certificate mentioning therein the names of four
children whose status as legitimate children of Sheetaldeen
could not and cannot be disputed. This Court in a reported
decision in Rameshwari Devi's case (supra) has held that
H
VIDYADHARI AND ORS. v. SUKHRANA BAI AND ORS. 1040
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
- "'t even if a Government Servant had contracted second marriage A
during the subsistence of his first marriage, children born out of
such second marriage would still be legitimate though the
second marriage itself would be void. The Court, therefore, went
on to hold that such children would be entitled to the pension but
not the second wife. It was, therefore, bound to be considered B
by the High Court as to whether Vidhyadhari being the nominee
, of Sheetaldeen could legitimately file an application for
' Succession Certificate and could be granted the same. The
law is clear on this issue that a nominee like Vidhyadhari who
was claiming the death benefits arising out of the employment c
can always file an application under Section 372 of the Indian
Succession Act as there is nothing in that Section to prevent
such a nominee from claiming the certificate on the basis of
nomination. The High Court should have realised that
Vidhyadhari was not only a nominee but also was the mother of
D
'f. four children of Sheetaldeen who were the legal heirs of
• Sheetaldeen and whose names were also found in Form A which
was the declaration of Sheetaldeen during his life-time. In her
application Vidhyadhari candidly pointed outthe names of the
four children as the legal heirs of Sheetaldeen. No doubt that
she herself has claimed to be a legal heir which status she could E
not claim but besides that she had the status of a nominee of
Sheetaldeen. She continued to stay with Sheetaldeen as his
wife for long time and was a person of confidence for
Sheetaldeen who had nominated her for his Provident Fund,
r~ F
Life Cover Scheme, Pension and amount of Life Insurance and
amount of other dues. Under such circumstances she was
always preferable even to the legally wedded wife like Sukhrana
Bai who had never stayed with Sheetaldeen as his wife and
who had gone to the extent of claiming the Succession
Certificate to the exclusion of legal heirs of Sheetaldeen. In the G
grant of Succession Certificate the court has to use its discretion
where the rival claims, as in this case, are made for the
Succession Certificate for the properties of the deceased. The
High Court should have taken into consideration these crucial
circumstances. Merely because Sukhrana Bai was the legally H
1041 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A wedded wife that by itself did not entitle her to a Succession f"' -
Certificate in comparison to Vidhyadhari who all through had
stayed as the wife of Sheetaldeen, had born his four children
and had claimed a Succession Certificate on behalf children
also. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in granting
B the claim of Sukhrana Bai to the exclusion not only of the nominee
of Sheetaldeen but also to the exclusion of his legitimate legal
heirs. r
11. Therefore, though we agree with the High Court that
Sukhrana Bai was the only legitimate wife yet, we would chose
c 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 115th. To balance
D the equities we would, therefore, chose to grant Succession
Certificate to Vidhyadhari but with a rider that she would protect -\
the 115th share of Sukhrana Bai in Sheetaldeen's properties •
and would hand over the same to her. As the nominee she would
hold the 115th share of Sukhrana Bai in trust and would be
E 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.
12. It should not be understood by the above that we are,
in any way, deciding the status of Vidhadhari finally. She may
F still prosecute her own remedies for establishing her own status r-.
independent of these proceedings.
13. In the result the appeal is allowed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
G D.G. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Succession Certificate"Sign in to search