The Gauhati High Court has held that the remedy for revocation of a succession certificate under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act does not make an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC irrelevant where the succession proceedings had gone ex parte against a legal heir who was not made a party.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed, “The question that as there is a specific provision is there in the Succession Act under Section 383 of revocation of the succession certificate, the respondent ought to have preferred an application under the said provision also is not of much relevance in as much as the fact remains that the court of the learned Additional District Judge proceeded ex parte against the present respondent in Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021.”

The observation came in a revision petition under Section 115 CPC challenging an order of the Additional District Judge (FTC-2), Tinsukia, by which a succession certificate earlier granted to the petitioners was set aside.

The petitioners had obtained the succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act in respect of the debts and securities left by their deceased father after pleading that they were his only legal heirs. Their sister, who was also a legal heir, had not been made a party to the proceedings. She thereafter moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, upon which the succession certificate was revoked.

The petitioners contended that as the respondent had not been made a party to the succession proceedings, there was no question of proceeding ex parte against her. They further submitted that the Indian Succession Act contained a specific provision under Section 383 for revocation of a succession certificate and that she ought to have proceeded under that provision.

The High Court, however, found from the materials on record that the petitioners' statement that they were the only legal heirs of the deceased was false.

The Court held, “On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that though the present petitioners in their application filed under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the trial court on the basis of which Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021 was registered, had pleaded that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased Late Amarendra Kumar Sarmah, however, the materials on record clearly indicates that the said statement is a false statement made by the petitioners in the said application.”

The Court further found that the respondent, being the daughter of the deceased, ought to have been made a party to the succession case.

“Hence, she ought to have been made a party in the Misc. Succession Case No. 17/2021. The observations made by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Tinsukia in the impugned judgment that the present petitioners fraudulently and willfully concealed the fact of the existence of another legal heirs of deceased Late Amarendra Kumar Sarmah, i.e., the respondent, who is his daughter, cannot be faulted with on any count,” the Court stated.

On the objection regarding Section 383 of the Succession Act, the Court held that it was “not of much relevance” since the succession case had proceeded ex parte without making the legal heir a party.

Referring to the decision in Deepesh Maheswari And Anr. Vs. Renu Maheswari And Ors., it found that an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was maintainable in such circumstances.

“As such, this court finds no fault in the impugned order, whereby the succession certificate granted to the present petitioners on 13.11.2024, passed in Misc. (Succession) Case No. 17/2021 has been set aside,” the Court said and finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

Case No.: CRP/114/2025

Case Title: Punam Kashyap Sarmah & Anr. v. Smt. Karabika Kashyap Sarma

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 137

Click Here To Read Judgement