Gauhati HC Upholds Revocation of Succession Certificate Obtained by Concealing Daughter as Legal Heir

Two sons who falsely claimed to be the sole legal heirs of their deceased father, excluding their sister, lose succession certificate after Gauhati High Court dismisses their civil revision.

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a civil revision filed by two brothers who had obtained a succession certificate over the estate of their late father by suppressing the existence of their sister as a legal heir. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, sitting singly, found no infirmity in the order of the Additional District Judge (FTC-2), Tinsukia, which had set aside the succession certificate. The court applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Deepesh Maheswari and Anr. v. Renu Maheswari and Ors., reported in 2023 Supreme (SC) 332, holding that an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable where a succession case proceeds ex parte without joining a known legal heir as a party.

The Dispute Before the Court

Late Amarendra Kumar Sarmah of village Naholia, Dibrugarh District, died on 27 October 2020. His two sons, Punam Kashyap Sarmah and Preetam Kashyap Sarmah, filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the Additional District Judge (FTC), Tinsukia, seeking a succession certificate in respect of the debts and securities left by their deceased father. The case was registered as Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021.

In that application, the two sons stated that they were the only legal heirs of the deceased. Their sister, Smt. Karabika Kashyap Sarma, was not made a party. The trial court, proceeding on that representation, granted the succession certificate in their favour by order dated 30 November 2021.

On 1 November 2023, Karabika Kashyap Sarma filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the Additional District Judge (FTC-2), Tinsukia, seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 30 November 2021. That application was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 26/2023. By its order dated 13 November 2024, the trial court allowed the application, revoked the succession certificate, and set aside the original grant.

The two sons then filed CRP/141/2025 before the Gauhati High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging that revocation order.

The Legal Arguments

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K.K. Dey, advanced two primary contentions. First, he argued that since Karabika had never been made a party to Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021, there was no question of any order being passed ex parte against her, and Order IX Rule 13 was therefore inapplicable. Second, he submitted that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 contains a specific provision for revocation of a succession certificate under Section 383, and Karabika ought to have pursued that statutory route instead.

Mr. Dey also placed before the court the fact that the deceased had executed a Will on 9 September 2019, bequeathing his landed properties and shops to the two petitioners. According to the Will, nothing was bequeathed to Karabika on the stated ground that she had married long ago, was living in her matrimonial home, and had already received money in the form of fixed deposits, an insurance policy, and jewelleries from the father during his lifetime. The petitioners had also filed a Probate Case before the Additional District Judge, Tinsukia, and had sought a stay of the Misc.(J) Case No. 26/2023 proceedings pending its disposal. That prayer was not allowed.

Counsel for the petitioners stated they had no objection if Karabika were to file an appropriate application before the appropriate court for revocation, and offered to contest such proceedings.

Counsel for the respondent, Mr. G. Khandelia, countered that the petitioners had played fraud on the court by suppressing a material fact — the existence of another legal heir — and that this conduct also attracted liability under Section 198 of the Indian Penal Code, as contemplated under Section 372(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. He relied on Deepesh Maheswari and Anr. v. Renu Maheswari and Ors., 2023 Supreme (SC) 332, where the Supreme Court had, under similar circumstances, upheld an application under Order IX Rule 13 setting aside an ex parte succession certificate grant. He also pointed out that Paragraph 7 of the impugned order itself described the original proceeding as an ex parte order.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Kalita examined the materials on record and found that the statement in the petitioners' Section 372 application — that they were the only legal heirs — was a false statement. The court noted that Karabika is the sister of the petitioners and the daughter of the deceased, and ought to have been made a party to Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021.

The court accepted the trial court's finding that the petitioners had “fraudulently and willfully concealed the fact of the existence of another legal heir” of the deceased, and held that this finding “cannot be faulted with on any count.”

On the argument that Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was the only available remedy, the court held that this contention was “not of much relevance” given that the trial court had in fact proceeded ex parte in the succession case without joining Karabika as a party. The availability of a Section 383 remedy did not foreclose the Order IX Rule 13 route in such circumstances.

The court drew directly on Deepesh Maheswari and Anr. v. Renu Maheswari and Ors., which had held that Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable where a succession certificate case proceeds ex parte without making a legal heir of the deceased a party. In that case, the Supreme Court had quashed a succession certificate granted in proceedings that went ex parte against a minor legal heir. Justice Kalita found the present facts to fall squarely within the principle laid down in that ruling.

The court accordingly found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the Additional District Judge (FTC-2), Tinsukia.

Order

The civil revision petition CRP/141/2025 was dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The order was delivered on 20 August 2026.