Expecting minor to respond to public notice about court case is ‘perverse’: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that expecting a minor to respond to a public notice about a court case is “wholly erroneous and perverse,” [Deepesh Maheswari & Anr. vs. Renu Maheswari & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and AG Masih cancelled an ex-parte succession certificate granted without informing a minor heir.

The Court held that a minor cannot be expected to take legal steps upon publication of a public notice and must be properly represented in proceedings affecting their rights.

It faulted the view taken by the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the minor could have seen the public notice and joined the proceedings.

The case arose from succession proceedings initiated after the death of a man employed as a lineman with the Madhya Pradesh Central Electricity Distribution Company in 2011.

Two of his daughters sought a succession certificate to receive his retiral benefits. A public notice was issued, following which the certificate was granted.

However, another legal heir, who was a minor at the time, was not impleaded in the proceedings despite the two daughters being aware of his existence.

After attaining majority, he challenged the earlier order, contending that he had been denied an opportunity to be heard.

The trial court rejected the application, holding that notice through publication was sufficient. This view was upheld by the appellate court and later by the High Court.

Before the Supreme Court, it was argued that a minor cannot be expected to act upon a public notice and that failure to appoint a guardian to represent the minor had vitiated the proceedings.

Accepting this contention, the Supreme Court held that the findings of the lower courts suffered from serious legal infirmities and that the minor had indeed been prejudiced.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the succession certificate and restored the proceedings to the trial court for fresh consideration.

The trial court was directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within one year.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Puneet Jain along with advocates Pratibha Jain, Christi Jain, Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Akriti Sharma, Aditya Jain, Siddharth Jain, Yogit Kamat and Ritvik Bharadwaj.

The respondents were represented by Advocate Arvind Gupta.

[Read Judgment]