A succession certificate cannot issue without sufficient proof of the applicant’s entitlement and heirship priority.

The petitioner sought a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for debts and securities worth Rs.59,02,778.45 belonging to S.N. Jayalakshmi, who died intestate, unmarried and without children.

He claimed through a maternal cousin relationship. The two respondents, his sisters, consented to the grant.

The genealogy disclosed several other branches of the deceased’s family, but the descendants of those branches and the position of heirs on her father’s side were not established.

The Court directed the petitioner to produce a legal-heir certificate; he later stated that he could not trace it, and produced neither that certificate nor equivalent evidence addressing the gaps.

1. Whether the petitioner established that he was entitled to a succession certificate, or had prima facie the best title to it, despite the unresolved questions concerning other potential heirs.

2. Whether the respondents’ consent, absence of objections after publication, or the deceased’s lifetime power of attorney established the petitioner’s entitlement.

Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, provides for an application for a succession certificate.

Under Section 373(2), the Court must be satisfied that the applicant’s right to the certificate belongs to them; under Section 373(3), where entitlement cannot be finally determined, the Court may consider who appears to have prima facie the best title.

Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, governs the order of succession to a female Hindu’s property, requiring consideration of the relevant lines of kinship and, where applicable, the source of the property.

The genealogy showed five family branches beyond the petitioner’s branch, but the descendants of those branches had not been identified; the evidence also did not establish whether there were heirs on the deceased’s father’s side.

The Court therefore could not determine the applicable succession priority under Section 15 or conclude that the petitioner had the right to the certificate or prima facie the best title under Section 373.

The respondents’ consent and the lack of objections following publication did not resolve the rights of unidentified persons, while the power of attorney did not establish succession rights.

The petitioner’s failure to produce the directed certificate or equivalent evidence left the material gaps unresolved.

It dismissed the petition for non-compliance with its order dated 7 September 2026 and made no order as to costs.