Succession Certificate in Delhi 2026 — Process, Documents & Legal Heir Certificate Compared

Part X of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Sections 370 to 390) deals with succession certificates. The certificate specifies the debts and securities set out in the application and may empower the holder to receive interest or dividends on, or to negotiate or transfer, the securities (Section 374). “Security” is defined for this Part to include promissory notes, debentures, stock or other securities of the Central or a State Government; stock, debentures or shares in a company or other incorporated institution; debentures and securities issued by a local authority; and any other security notified by the State Government (Section 370(2)). The certificate has effect throughout India (Section 380) and can later be extended to further debts or securities (Section 376).

Section 214 bars a court from passing a decree against a debtor of a deceased person, or executing a decree for payment of such a debt, in favour of a person claiming on succession, unless that person produces a probate, letters of administration, a certificate under the Administrator-General’s Act, 1913, or a succession certificate specifying the debt. Outside court, banks, companies, depositories and employers commonly ask for a succession certificate before releasing money or securities to heirs, particularly where there is no nominee, the heirs disagree, or the amount is large. Section 370 bars a certificate for any debt or security to which a right must be established by letters of administration under Section 212; the words of Section 370 were amended by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025 (w.e.f. 20 December 2025), so practitioners should read the current text.

The application is a petition to the District Judge, signed and verified like a plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 372(1)). It must state the time of death; the deceased’s ordinary residence (and property within the court’s limits, if he resided elsewhere); the family or other near relatives and their residences; the right in which the petitioner claims; the absence of any impediment under Section 370 or any other law; and the debts and securities for which the certificate is sought. A false averment in the verification is punishable as an offence (Section 372(2)). The application may be for any debt or debts, or portions of them (Section 372(3)). If there is ground to entertain it, the Judge fixes a hearing, serves special notice on persons who should receive it, posts and publishes the notice, and then decides the right to the certificate in a summary manner (Section 373(1)). Where questions are too intricate for summary decision, the Judge may still grant the certificate to the person with prima facie the best title (Section 373(3)), and in that case must require a security bond (Section 375(1)). The court fee is deposited with the application and refunded if not used (Section 379).

As to the debts and securities specified, the certificate is conclusive against the persons owing them and gives full indemnity for payments made or dealings had in good faith with the holder (Section 381). But no decision under Part X bars a trial of the same question of right in a suit, and the holder remains liable to account to the person lawfully entitled (Section 387). A certificate may be revoked for defective proceedings, fraud or concealment, an untrue essential allegation, its becoming useless, or a later decree (Section 383). An appeal against an order granting, refusing or revoking a certificate lies to the High Court within the time allowed for appeals under the CPC (Section 384); where the order is made by a notified inferior court, the appeal lies to the District Judge (Section 388). A holder of a superseded or invalid certificate who wilfully fails to surrender it on the court’s requisition is liable to a fine which may extend to ₹10,000 (Section 389(2), as substituted by Act 8 of 2026 with effect from 19 June 2026, according to the India Code text); earlier, the provision also allowed imprisonment.

A nominee in a bank account, company register or demat account is not the same as an heir. In Shakti Yezdani v. Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar (2023 INSC 1076), the Supreme Court held that a nominee of shares under the Companies Act does not get absolute title; nomination gives the company a discharge and protects the securities until the legal representatives take steps — it is not a third mode of succession. Families should therefore expect that a nominee may receive the asset but may still have to account to the heirs under the applicable succession law.