Skip to main content

No Prohibition For Succession Of The Property In India By A Foreign National By Inheritance

In B.C. SINGH vs J.M. UTARID, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether a foreign national can inherit property in India.

BC Singh and his wife SL Singh were Christians. After his wife expired, BC Singh (Plaintiff) filed a suit against one JM Utarid (defendant) for possession of the property and for damages on the ground that they were the licensees in respect of the suit property and that their license had been terminated. The suit got dismissed and later the high court upheld the dismissal.

Before the apex court assailing the high court order, plaintiff contended that he was the sole owner of the property. It was also contended that the first defendant was a distant kindred as compared to Ida Utarid, real sister of Dr SL Singh, and though Ida Utarid was a foreign national, there was no bar for her to succeed to her share in the property of her deceased sister Dr SL Singh.

The counsel appearing for the defendant contended that Ida Utarid is not entitled to succeed to the estate of Dr SL Singh as she is a Pakistani national and the defendant being the kindred of deceased Dr SL Singh are entitled to 1/4th undivided share in the suit property.

The Supreme Court held that Dr. S.L. Singh is admittedly an Indian Christian. Therefore, the Indian Succession Act, 1925 would be applicable to the succession of the property left by her. This Act does not bar the succession of property of any Indian Christian by a person who is not an Indian national. There is no prohibition for succession of the property in India by a foreign national by inheritance.

Referring to provisions of the Indian Succession Act, the bench observed that when intestate has not left behind any lineal descendant and has only kindred, the nearer kindred excludes the distant kindred. It also held that the first defendant being a distant kindred is not entitled to succeed any share in the property since the intestate has left behind her real sister.

In the instant case, Dr. S.L. Singh has left behind her sister, Ida Utarid. She has not left behind any lineal descendant. Ida Utarid was the only near kindred and preferential heir of the intestate and she would have succeeded to 1/4th share in the property.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more