Introduction:

The Gauhati High Court has delivered an important ruling on the remedies available to an excluded legal heir in succession certificate proceedings, holding that the existence of a specific remedy for revocation under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 does not render an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 irrelevant or non-maintainable where the succession proceedings had effectively gone ex parte against a legal heir who was not impleaded as a party.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita made the observation while dismissing a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC in Punam Kashyap Sarmah & Anr. v. Smt. Karabika Kashyap Sarma, CRP/114/2025, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 137. The Court upheld the order of the Additional District Judge (FTC-2), Tinsukia, which had set aside a succession certificate earlier obtained by the petitioners.

The case raised a significant question concerning procedural fairness in succession matters. Can persons who obtain a succession certificate after representing themselves to be the only legal heirs subsequently resist an excluded heir’s application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by arguing that the Indian Succession Act contains a separate and specific provision for revocation of the certificate under Section 383? The High Court answered this question by focusing on the substance of the proceedings rather than merely the technical form of the remedy chosen.

A succession certificate is issued under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act to facilitate the collection of debts and securities belonging to a deceased person. It is not a final adjudication of title to the entire estate. Nevertheless, the issuance of such a certificate can have serious practical consequences because it enables the holder to receive debts and securities due to the deceased. The statutory process, therefore, requires the court to consider the persons who may have a legitimate interest in the estate.

In the present case, the petitioners had approached the competent court under Section 372 seeking a succession certificate in respect of the debts and securities left behind by their deceased father, Late Amarendra Kumar Sarmah. In their application, they asserted that they were the only legal heirs of the deceased. On the basis of the proceedings initiated by them, Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021 was registered, and a succession certificate was eventually granted to them on November 13, 2024.

The difficulty, however, was that the deceased had another legal heir, his daughter, Smt. Karabika Kashyap Sarma, who was the respondent before the High Court. She had not been impleaded or brought before the succession court despite being a daughter of the deceased and, therefore, a person with a direct legal interest in the succession proceedings.

After learning of the proceedings and the grant of the certificate, the respondent moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. She sought the setting aside of the order by which the succession certificate had been granted. The Additional District Judge accepted her application and set aside the certificate.

The petitioners then approached the Gauhati High Court in revision. Their challenge rested primarily on two connected grounds. First, they argued that because the respondent had never been made a party to the original succession proceedings, it was legally incorrect to say that the case had proceeded ex parte against her. Second, they contended that Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act specifically provides for the revocation of a succession certificate and, therefore, the respondent ought to have pursued that statutory remedy rather than filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

The High Court, however, found that the record did not support the petitioners’ claim that they were the only legal heirs of the deceased. On the contrary, the materials clearly showed that the respondent was also a daughter and legal heir of Late Amarendra Kumar Sarmah. Her exclusion from the proceedings was therefore not a minor procedural irregularity but went to the fairness and legitimacy of the succession process itself.

The judgment is particularly important because it prevents procedural provisions from being used to protect an order allegedly obtained after concealing the existence of a necessary and interested legal heir. The Court emphasised that the availability of a specific remedy under the Succession Act does not automatically bar another legally maintainable procedural remedy, particularly where the proceedings themselves had resulted in an order being passed without the participation of a person who ought to have been before the court.

The ruling also reinforces the broader principle that succession proceedings must be conducted with candour and fairness. A person seeking a succession certificate cannot secure an advantage by making a false assertion regarding the existence of other legal heirs and then rely on technical objections when the excluded heir approaches the court for relief.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners, Punam Kashyap Sarmah and another, challenged the order of the Additional District Judge, Tinsukia, by which the succession certificate granted to them had been set aside. Their principal submission was that the respondent had adopted an incorrect remedy by filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

According to the petitioners, Order IX Rule 13 is ordinarily invoked by a defendant or respondent against whom a decree has been passed ex parte. They argued that the respondent in the present case had never been made a party to Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021. Therefore, they contended that she could not legally claim that an ex parte order had been passed against her.

The petitioners attempted to draw a distinction between a person who is duly impleaded and served but fails to appear before the court, and a person who was never joined as a party at all. Since the respondent belonged to the latter category, they argued that Order IX Rule 13 CPC could not be invoked for setting aside the succession certificate.

Their second and more substantial objection was based on Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This provision contains a specific mechanism for revocation of a succession certificate in circumstances recognised by the statute. The petitioners submitted that where a special enactment creates a particular remedy for revoking a certificate issued under that enactment, an aggrieved person should ordinarily pursue that remedy.

They therefore argued that the respondent should have filed an application under Section 383 seeking revocation of the succession certificate rather than invoking Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. According to them, the availability of the statutory remedy under Section 383 made the procedural application adopted by the respondent legally inappropriate.

The petitioners also maintained that since the succession proceedings had been conducted in accordance with the process initiated under Section 372, the subsequent setting aside of the certificate on an application under Order IX Rule 13 was unjustified. They therefore sought interference with the order of the Additional District Judge in the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.

The respondent, on the other hand, defended the order setting aside the succession certificate by emphasising the fundamental fact that she was a daughter and legal heir of the deceased. Her case was that she had been completely excluded from proceedings which directly concerned the debts and securities of her father.

The respondent’s position was strengthened by the contents of the petitioners’ original application under Section 372. The petitioners had represented to the succession court that they were the only legal heirs of the deceased. The respondent contended that this representation was false because her existence as another legal heir had been concealed.

According to the respondent, she was a person who ought to have been made a party to the succession proceedings. Had the petitioners disclosed her existence and impleaded her, she would have received an opportunity to appear and place her claim before the court before the succession certificate was granted.

Instead, the proceedings culminated without her participation. She therefore invoked Order IX Rule 13 CPC, along with the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC, to challenge the order that had resulted from her exclusion.

The respondent’s case was essentially that procedural law cannot be interpreted in a manner that rewards a party for suppressing the existence of a legal heir. If the petitioners themselves failed to disclose the existence of a person who ought to have been before the court, they could not subsequently take advantage of that very omission by arguing that the excluded person was never technically a party and could therefore not seek relief under Order IX Rule 13.

The respondent also relied on the legal position that courts are required to examine the substance and circumstances of proceedings. The fact that she had been denied an opportunity to participate in a succession case concerning her father’s estate was, according to her, sufficient to justify the court’s intervention.

On the objection concerning Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, the respondent’s position was that the existence of a statutory provision for revocation did not make every other legally available remedy unavailable. The immediate grievance arose from the manner in which the succession proceedings had been conducted and from the fact that an interested legal heir had been excluded.

The dispute therefore brought before the High Court a conflict between a technical objection to the form of the remedy and the substantive requirement of ensuring that a legal heir is not deprived of an opportunity to participate because her existence was allegedly concealed from the court.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita found no reason to interfere with the order of the Additional District Judge and dismissed the revision petition. The Court’s reasoning was founded on the factual finding that the petitioners had made a false statement in the original succession application by claiming that they were the only legal heirs of the deceased.

The High Court examined the materials on record and found that the respondent was indeed the daughter of Late Amarendra Kumar Sarmah. Consequently, the assertion made by the petitioners in their application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act that they were the sole legal heirs was contrary to the record.

This finding was crucial to the outcome of the case. The Court held that the respondent, being a legal heir of the deceased, ought to have been made a party to Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021. Her exclusion could not be treated as an insignificant procedural matter because the petitioners had specifically represented that no other legal heir existed.

The High Court therefore agreed with the observation of the Additional District Judge that the petitioners had fraudulently and wilfully concealed the existence of another legal heir, namely the respondent. Justice Kalita held that this conclusion could not be faulted.

The Court’s approach reflects a basic principle governing proceedings before courts: parties must approach the court with complete and truthful disclosure of material facts. This requirement becomes particularly important in succession proceedings, where the identity and existence of legal heirs may directly affect the course of the proceedings.

A succession certificate may not conclusively determine the ultimate title to the estate, but its grant has significant legal consequences. The court issuing such a certificate must therefore be provided with correct information about the persons who may have an interest in the debts and securities of the deceased.

The petitioners’ attempt to rely on the fact that the respondent had not been formally impleaded was rejected in light of the circumstances in which her non-impleadment had occurred. The Court did not allow the petitioners to use their own alleged failure to disclose the respondent’s existence as a technical defence against her application.

The High Court then addressed the objection based on Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 383 provides a statutory mechanism for revocation of a succession certificate in specified circumstances. The petitioners argued that because such a remedy was available, the respondent should have invoked that provision.

The Court held that this argument was “not of much relevance” in the facts of the present case. The decisive consideration was that the succession proceedings had proceeded ex parte in circumstances where the respondent, a legal heir who ought to have been made a party, had not been included in the proceedings.

The judgment makes it clear that the existence of a specific statutory remedy does not automatically make Order IX Rule 13 CPC irrelevant in every situation. The nature of the grievance and the circumstances in which the original order was passed must also be considered.

The High Court found support for this approach in Deepesh Maheswari and Anr. v. Renu Maheswari and Ors. Referring to that decision, the Court held that an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was maintainable in the circumstances of the present case.

This aspect of the judgment is legally significant. Order IX Rule 13 is designed to provide relief against an ex parte decree where the concerned party did not have an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings for legally recognised reasons. In the present case, the respondent’s exclusion was not the result of a deliberate decision to remain absent after receiving notice. Rather, she was not brought before the court at all, despite being a legal heir whose existence ought to have been disclosed.

The Court therefore adopted a substantive understanding of the proceedings. It recognised that the respondent had effectively been denied an opportunity to be heard in a case that directly concerned her father’s debts and securities. Merely describing her as a “non-party” could not justify preserving an order allegedly obtained after concealing her existence.

The ruling also highlights the role of Section 151 CPC. The inherent powers of the court exist to ensure that the process of law is not used to produce injustice. While such powers cannot ordinarily be exercised in conflict with express statutory provisions, they may assist the court in addressing situations where procedural manipulation or concealment has resulted in a party being denied an opportunity to participate.

The Court did not hold that Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act was unnecessary or irrelevant as a general matter. Rather, it held that the petitioners could not successfully argue that the availability of Section 383 automatically defeated the respondent’s application under Order IX Rule 13 in the peculiar circumstances of this case.

This distinction is important. The existence of one statutory remedy does not necessarily mean that another otherwise maintainable remedy is barred, particularly where the challenge is directed at the procedural manner in which the original order was obtained.

The High Court also rejected the petitioners’ argument that there could be no question of an ex parte proceeding against a person who was not formally impleaded. Such an interpretation, if accepted without regard to the facts, would create an anomalous result. A person who concealed the existence of an interested heir could obtain an order without joining that heir and later argue that the heir has no remedy under Order IX Rule 13 precisely because she was never made a party.

The Court’s decision prevents such an outcome. Procedural rules are intended to advance justice and cannot ordinarily be interpreted to enable a litigant to benefit from the consequences of his or her own alleged concealment.

The judgment also reinforces the importance of truthful pleadings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. An applicant seeking a succession certificate has a duty to place accurate and complete material before the court. The identity of legal heirs is not a peripheral matter. It is central to ensuring that persons having a legitimate interest in the succession are not deprived of an opportunity to participate.

The High Court consequently found no error in the Additional District Judge’s decision to set aside the succession certificate granted on November 13, 2024. The Court held that the order impugned before it was legally justified and did not warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.

Revisional jurisdiction is not intended to permit the High Court to substitute its view merely because another interpretation may be possible. Interference is generally justified where there is a jurisdictional error, material irregularity or other legally recognised ground. In the present case, the Court found no such error in the decision of the Additional District Judge.

The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

The ruling carries a wider message for succession litigation. Succession proceedings cannot be treated as a forum in which one set of heirs may secure an advantage by excluding another heir from the court process. Where the existence of a legal heir is concealed and the proceedings result in an order without that heir’s participation, courts may examine the substance of the grievance and provide appropriate procedural relief.

At the same time, the judgment does not dilute the statutory remedy under Section 383. Revocation remains an important remedy under the Indian Succession Act. What the High Court clarified is that the existence of Section 383 does not, in the circumstances of a case where a legal heir was improperly excluded and the proceedings effectively went ex parte against that heir, automatically make an Order IX Rule 13 application irrelevant.

The Court’s approach places procedural fairness at the centre of succession adjudication. A person cannot ordinarily be denied an opportunity to be heard in a matter concerning the estate of a deceased parent simply because other applicants represented themselves to be the only legal heirs.

Ultimately, the Gauhati High Court upheld the setting aside of the succession certificate because the respondent’s exclusion was rooted in the false assertion that no other legal heir existed. The Court refused to permit a technical objection regarding the remedy to overshadow the more fundamental issue of whether a legal heir had been wrongfully deprived of an opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

The judgment is therefore a significant affirmation of the principle that procedural remedies must be interpreted in a manner that promotes fairness rather than enables the consequences of alleged fraud or concealment to be preserved. Where a succession certificate is obtained after excluding a legal heir who ought to have been before the court, the excluded heir’s application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC cannot be rejected merely by pointing to Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act.