In a significant ruling that touches on both inheritance rights and pension law, the Gauhati High Court on October 22, 2025, settled a long-drawn dispute over the estate of a deceased Assam government employee. Justice Robin Phukan, presiding over Intest. Case No. 4/2024, upheld the trial court's order granting a joint succession certificate to the widow, mother, and daughters of late Subal Borah but with an important caveat: family pension benefits were excluded from the scope of the succession certificate.
The case, Smt. Jyoti Kalita vs Smt. Guneswari Borah and Others, stemmed from a bitter inheritance fight within one family of Dhing Athagaon, Nagaon district, that revolved around the recognition of a second wife and the rightful division of pension and service benefits.
Background
Late Subal Borah, who served as a Nayak in the Assam Special Reserve Force, passed away in July 2018. His mother, Smt. Guneswari Borah, and his two daughters, Lipika and Dipsikha, filed for a succession certificate to claim around ₹14.34 lakh in dues, including gratuity, leave encashment, GPF, and family pension.
The twist came when Smt. Jyoti Kalita, who claimed to be Borah's second wife, objected. She insisted she had legally married Subal Borah in 2007 after his first wife's death and had lived with him till his demise. The respondents, however, accused her of forging documents to insert her name as wife.
The trial court, after examining witnesses and evidence, ruled that Jyoti Kalita was indeed the lawful wife, granting a joint succession certificate to all claimants. Unhappy with this decision, Kalita appealed to the High Court, arguing that the order violated the Indian Succession Act and pension rules.
Court's Observations
Justice Phukan carefully dissected the legal issues, notably whether joint certificates could be issued, whether a married daughter could inherit, and whether family pension counted as a "debt or security" under the Indian Succession Act.
On the joint certificate question, the judge noted conflicting precedents across India. Referring to prior rulings, including Sakti Gupta vs Shantanu Gupta (2010 GLT 645) and Vidhyadhari vs Sukhrana Bai (2008) 2 SCC 238, the Court observed that issuing joint succession certificates was not illegal when all claimants were legitimate heirs.
"The Court sees no bar in granting a joint succession certificate," Justice Phukan remarked, emphasizing that equitable distribution could be achieved within the same order rather than forcing separate proceedings.
On the rights of married daughters, the bench firmly rejected the appellant’s contention that they were excluded from inheritance. Quoting the landmark Supreme Court decision in Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma (2020), the judge stated:
"The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act brought daughters, married or not, on par with sons. Their right arises by birth, not by marriage status."
However, the Court drew a clear line regarding family pension. Citing earlier Supreme Court decisions such as Nitu vs Sheela Rani (2016) and Violet Issaac vs Union of India (1991), Justice Phukan clarified that family pension is not a transferable asset.
"Family pension does not form part of the deceased employee’s estate and cannot be subject to a succession certificate. It is governed strictly by the Pension Rules," the bench noted.
Court's Decision
Balancing the equities, the Gauhati High Court dismissed Jyoti Kalita’s appeal but partly modified the trial court’s order. While upholding the joint succession certificate for debts and securities, it excluded family pension from the certificate's scope.
The Court directed that Jyoti Kalita, being the nominee in Subal Borah's service records, would receive the certificate but must hold one-fourth of the total amount in trust for each of the three respondents - the mother and two daughters. She was also required to furnish security before the trial court to ensure fair distribution.
In conclusion, the bench reiterated:
"Since family pension is governed by the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969, and is not part of the estate, the parties are free to approach the appropriate pension authority."
The judgment not only resolved a deeply personal family battle but also reaffirmed a broader legal principle - that women, regardless of marital status, hold equal succession rights, even as pension benefits remain outside inheritance claims.
Case Title: Smt. Jyoti Kalita vs. Smt. Guneswari Borah & Others
Case Number: Intest. Case No. 4 of 2024
Date of Judgment: 22 October 2025
Advocates:
- For the Appellant: Mr. A. Biswas, Advocate
- For the Respondents: Mr. S. Borthakur and Mr. R. Sensua, Advocates
