Heirs of a daughter who dies after intestate succession opens inherit her equal share in the estate.

The petitioners sought a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, concerning securities and accumulated dividends held in the name of Mrs. R. Janaki, who died intestate on 19 September 2023.

Petitioners 1 and 2 were her son and daughter; petitioners 3 to 5 were the legal heirs of her daughter, Rama Rajagopalan, who died after Mrs. Janaki

The securities comprised 100 REC Capital Gains Tax Exemption Bonds under Folio No. 368491, valued at Rs. 10,91,370

The fourth petitioner testified, and the petitioners produced death and legal-heirship certificates, the bond certificate, proof of publication and other documents

Whether the petitioners established that they were the surviving legal heirs entitled to seek a succession certificate in respect of Mrs. Janaki’s securities and accumulated dividends

Whether a succession certificate should be issued jointly in favour of the petitioners for the specified securities

The petition was brought under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Order XXV Rule 6 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules

The Court ordered issuance of the certificate under Section 373 of the Act, subject to furnishing the requisite security and complying with statutory requirements, including payment of the requisite court fee if unpaid

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the pleadings, the fourth petitioner’s testimony and the documentary evidence.

It found that Mrs. Janaki died intestate, that her husband and parents had predeceased her, and that petitioners 1 and 2 were her children.

It further accepted the evidence that petitioners 3 to 5 were the legal heirs of Mrs. Janaki’s predeceased daughter, Rama Rajagopalan.

On that basis, the Court held that all five petitioners were Mrs. Janaki’s surviving legal heirs and entitled to succeed to her estate in equal shares

Issuance was subject to furnishing the requisite security and meeting statutory requirements, including any outstanding court fee.

No costs were ordered